|
Post by DKTrav88 on Dec 31, 2018 20:54:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jan 2, 2019 21:37:31 GMT
Do you think what China is doing is justified only because they have something they want to strive toward? Yes. How far does this go then? What if China strived for something else, like the elimination of freedom of speech? Or a step further, freedom of thought? What justifies a limitation or elimination of any freedom?
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jan 2, 2019 21:44:36 GMT
Chinese do the same thing to their Muslim ethnic groups.See Xinjiang re-education campsYeah, it look likes a harsh assimilation system. But maybe Chinese don't want to repeat grave mistakes of other peoples and countries. China also has a social credit program in their country where if you are not a “good” citizen, you get points taken from your account and you are then prevented from doing specific things like, for example, traveling. futurism.com/china-social-credit-system-rate-human-value/Do you think China is a model country for the rest of the world?
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,696
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jan 2, 2019 22:47:48 GMT
How far does this go then? What if China strived for something else, like the elimination of freedom of speech? Or a step further, freedom of thought? What justifies a limitation or elimination of any freedom? Your arguing with a literal fascist starting from the assumptions that the classical liberal position of the United States of America is a given talking about freedom of speech, religion, and thought and the like. This works with a normal western man because it is the cultural consensus among us that freedom is a good thing, obvious, accepted as gospel. This will not work with American charm because he does not hold the same value system as you or I or any other western man. His fascist values do not see freedom as the prime thing that a society should strive for and if freedom were to lead to degeneracy, foreign cultural influences, disloyalty and disorder in the state, or harm to the nation (the last of which he defines in racial and ethnic terms and I suspect is paramount above everything) than he would do away with it in a heart beat. You're basically talking to Hitler and asking, "what if a society were to get rid of freedom of speech, religion, freedom of thought, or any other freedom would you support that?" Like Hitler he's going to laugh in your face and answer "yes, obviously I'M A FASCIST! ." The correct way to argue against American Charm is to explain why freedom is a good thing even if it leads to degeneracy, foreign cultural influences, disloyalty to and disorder within the state, and perhaps harm to the ethnos. I agree with you but you cant argue with a fascist from the position that Enlightenment values are obviously correct, no explanation needed, because he does not buy in to ANY of that. He is an open and proud authoritarian, freedom is not his first priority at all.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jan 2, 2019 23:12:40 GMT
There must be a power that will put China in order . This country has great prospects in the future. The problem is that some people (power)in China view Christianity as part of the Western world, but this is not quite the case( I mean the modern Western world) Communism itself is a Western philosophy( Marx and Engels) Although the Chinese have always sought to be separate from all. They are the center of civilization-all the other barbarians. They must abandon this philosophy because of its Western origin! But as I wrote above should be a force that will lead them in the right order. This video will explain the situation better : Yes, precisely, I agree that. This is not a truly and sincere step of China to tear&torn Christianity legacy. Christianity was never up to it. I don't understand why so many pressure today against Christianity. I even know not less atheists who holds up the view that even if Christianity is not the correct vision of the world, it has many potential inside it, and it is a good historical example of the one of the great view in history. I haven't seen Dugin's video yet, I'll do it a bit later, but I think that I'll see something that corresponds to the position I uttered. This video explains why China supports such civilizational views. My thoughts on the basis of this I have already written a earlier. With specific regard to this topic. Let me remind you that more than a billion people live in China and one or more incidents do not affect the situation as a whole. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_ChinaChristians still work in China, and this article( China Cracks Down on Christianity) for the western man can definitely have political overtones.
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on Jan 3, 2019 4:07:12 GMT
How far does this go then? What if China strived for something else, like the elimination of freedom of speech? Or a step further, freedom of thought? What justifies a limitation or elimination of any freedom? Your arguing with a literal fascist starting from the assumptions that the classical liberal position of the United States of America is a given talking about freedom of speech, religion, and thought and the like. This works with a normal western man because it is the cultural consensus among us that freedom is a good thing, obvious, accepted as gospel. This will not work with American charm because he does not hold the same value system as you or I or any other western man. His fascist values do not see freedom as the prime thing that a society should strive for and if freedom were to lead to degeneracy, foreign cultural influences, disloyalty and disorder in the state, or harm to the nation (the last of which he defines in racial and ethnic terms and I suspect is paramount above everything) than he would do away with it in a heart beat. You're basically talking to Hitler and asking, "what if a society were to get rid of freedom of speech, religion, freedom of thought, or any other freedom would you support that?" Like Hitler he's going to laugh in your face and answer "yes, obviously I'M A FASCIST! ." The correct way to argue against American Charm is to explain why freedom is a good thing even if it leads to degeneracy, foreign cultural influences, disloyalty to and disorder within the state, and perhaps harm to the ethnos. I agree with you but you cant argue with a fascist from the position that Enlightenment values are obviously correct, no explanation needed, because he does not buy in to ANY of that. He is an open and proud authoritarian, freedom is not his first priority at all. I was raised in a household by a father who is a typical Capitalist, Constitutionalist, Reagan Conservative. His father is a typical Goldwater type Republican. So I definitely understand the perspective of Libertarian type individuals. I just simply don’t agree with aspects of their thought process or outlook. I don’t need anything explained to me. My value systems are shared with plenty of western men. Particularly other individuals with Nationalist, Traditionalist, and Autocratic leanings. They were much more commonly found in the past. You’ve done me a disservice and oversimplified my views and compared me to Hitler. But you are right about my valuing of some other things over “freedom”. I don’t believe that all personal liberty should be stripped away from the populace. There is a difference between inherent human rights, given to us from birth and the demand for new rights that have come about as a result of the new toxic “free” modern western world. Things like gun ownership and the general right to protect oneself and family are an example of the former. Things like gay marriage, open borders, anti-patriotism, legal drug use, sanctuary cities, and the want or right to be as degenerate as one pleases are all examples of the latter. An autocratic society must find a balance between regulation in the name of a healthy society and outright tyranny. It is of the upmost importance that we take measures to preserve our nations, environments, cultures and people. Perhaps that seems archaic to some individuals, but if we continue to let degeneracy run rampant in our society we will soon become the next Sodom & Gomorrah (nice little Christian reference just for you guys). If we don't do something to correct these plagues on our way of life, people will end up resorting to drastic of measures, and anyone who wasn't convinced beforehand will wish they had listened, and there is a possibility by then it will be too late. People are slowly being turned into a soulless labor machine whilst being told we are free but that this pursuit of ultimate and unrestricted freedom will lead to the end of people, culture, and nations. Liberty does not exist in the absence of virtue, values, and principles of conduct. The sooner Libertarian minded individuals learn that, the better things will be.
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Jan 3, 2019 6:27:07 GMT
Chinese do the same thing to their Muslim ethnic groups.See Xinjiang re-education campsYeah, it look likes a harsh assimilation system. But maybe Chinese don't want to repeat grave mistakes of other peoples and countries. China also has a social credit program in their country where if you are not a “good” citizen, you get points taken from your account and you are then prevented from doing specific things like, for example, traveling. futurism.com/china-social-credit-system-rate-human-value/Do you think China is a model country for the rest of the world? No, I don't. In my opinion, Chinese government is similar to a control freak person. Never forget censorship and other issues in China.
I believe in freedom of religion but I think almost all religions have a potential to turn into dangerous cults and movements. So governments must remain irreligious and secular and they always watch activity of religions and their followers. Allow people to have churches, mosques, temples, and etc BUT keep your eyes on them.
Another point is religion affects all aspects of a society. Compare Europe before Christianity and after it, Middle East before Islam and after it, and many other similar historical cases. So if Chinese are not interested in Christianity or Islam, there could be cultural reasons behind it. For instance, what would happen to UK if majority of its people become Muslim?
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jan 4, 2019 8:23:14 GMT
China also has a social credit program in their country where if you are not a “good” citizen, you get points taken from your account and you are then prevented from doing specific things like, for example, traveling. futurism.com/china-social-credit-system-rate-human-value/Do you think China is a model country for the rest of the world? No, I don't. In my opinion, Chinese government is similar to a control freak person. Never forget censorship and other issues in China. I believe in freedom of religion but I think almost all religions have a potential to turn into dangerous cults and movements. So governments must remain irreligious and secular and they always watch activity of religions and their followers. Allow people to have churches, mosques, temples, and etc BUT keep your eyes on them. Another point is religion affects all aspects of a society. Compare Europe before Christianity and after it, Middle East before Islam and after it, and many other similar historical cases. So if Chinese are not interested in Christianity or Islam, there could be cultural reasons behind it. For instance, what would happen to UK if majority of its people become Muslim? Well, Islam is not Christianity. Islam is a 'peace through submission' type of religion. I wonder what the Chinese have against Christianity
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,696
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jan 8, 2019 22:03:46 GMT
Your arguing with a literal fascist starting from the assumptions that the classical liberal position of the United States of America is a given talking about freedom of speech, religion, and thought and the like. This works with a normal western man because it is the cultural consensus among us that freedom is a good thing, obvious, accepted as gospel. This will not work with American charm because he does not hold the same value system as you or I or any other western man. His fascist values do not see freedom as the prime thing that a society should strive for and if freedom were to lead to degeneracy, foreign cultural influences, disloyalty and disorder in the state, or harm to the nation (the last of which he defines in racial and ethnic terms and I suspect is paramount above everything) than he would do away with it in a heart beat. You're basically talking to Hitler and asking, "what if a society were to get rid of freedom of speech, religion, freedom of thought, or any other freedom would you support that?" Like Hitler he's going to laugh in your face and answer "yes, obviously I'M A FASCIST! ." The correct way to argue against American Charm is to explain why freedom is a good thing even if it leads to degeneracy, foreign cultural influences, disloyalty to and disorder within the state, and perhaps harm to the ethnos. I agree with you but you cant argue with a fascist from the position that Enlightenment values are obviously correct, no explanation needed, because he does not buy in to ANY of that. He is an open and proud authoritarian, freedom is not his first priority at all. I was raised in a household by a father who is a typical Capitalist, Constitutionalist, Reagan Conservative. His father is a typical Goldwater type Republican. So I definitely understand the perspective of Libertarian type individuals. I just simply don’t agree with aspects of their thought process or outlook. I don’t need anything explained to me. My value systems are shared with plenty of western men. Particularly other individuals with Nationalist, Traditionalist, and Autocratic leanings. They were much more commonly found in the past. You’ve done me a disservice and oversimplified my views and compared me to Hitler. But you are right about my valuing of some other things over “freedom”. I don’t believe that all personal liberty should be stripped away from the populace. There is a difference between inherent human rights, given to us from birth and the demand for new rights that have come about as a result of the new toxic “free” modern western world. Things like gun ownership and the general right to protect oneself and family are an example of the former. Things like gay marriage, open borders, anti-patriotism, legal drug use, sanctuary cities, and the want or right to be as degenerate as one pleases are all examples of the latter. An autocratic society must find a balance between regulation in the name of a healthy society and outright tyranny. It is of the upmost importance that we take measures to preserve our nations, environments, cultures and people. Perhaps that seems archaic to some individuals, but if we continue to let degeneracy run rampant in our society we will soon become the next Sodom & Gomorrah (nice little Christian reference just for you guys). If we don't do something to correct these plagues on our way of life, people will end up resorting to drastic of measures, and anyone who wasn't convinced beforehand will wish they had listened, and there is a possibility by then it will be too late. People are slowly being turned into a soulless labor machine whilst being told we are free but that this pursuit of ultimate and unrestricted freedom will lead to the end of people, culture, and nations. Liberty does not exist in the absence of virtue, values, and principles of conduct. The sooner Libertarian minded individuals learn that, the better things will be. My point was not that you need freedom explained to you, it was to tell DKTrav that he was arguing from the position that the classical liberal consensus is just accepted by both parties and that it is most assuredly not in your case. You both have completely different value systems and while yes your views are shared by many western men it is not the consensus and to most people in the west your views are an aberration, it differs from the norm as of the present. My point to DKTrav was that he was arguing with you as if you are someone with typical contemporary western views when you are not and that he was talking past you with his talk of freedom of speech, religion etc. The Hitler example was an extreme example to make my point and was probably a mistake to mention. Mussolini works just as well I think. You do not need freedom explained to you but you do need to be argued with as you are and not as the average liberal (Enlightenment values small L) one wold normally meet in today's society. Also don't say that your views are normal in today's society because they aren't. There is a consensus in modern western society whether one is on the left or the right that classical liberal values as articulated in the enlightenment are the correct values even if the different parties interpret them differently. Right wing "conservatives" harp on about individual liberty capitalism, and free speech in the United States for example even though conservatism originated as a reaction against the enlightenment and was pro aristocracy, state religion, monarchy, agrarianism, traditional values, and anti capitalism, democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, industrialization etc. A fascist on the other hand is about the worst thing one can be according to the broader society we live in. I'm not passing any value judgments myself but its true. This norm is so pervasive in fact that DKTrav88 just assumed you were on the bandwagon for instance.
|
|