So Paul posted a new vid, and it's pretty effing dark. I think it's as dark as he's ever gotten, short of some of his old conspiracy videos. It's kinda interesting for him to rail at even the Republicans, too, he probably expected faster change than whatever we're having.
What do you guys think? Is he being too hyperbolic here? When do you think it's going to end for us, or do you even care? Could we get out of it?
Oh, and on a side note, Paul mistakes the collapse of Aztec civilization (through Hernan Cortes subverting the systematic cuckholdery of the non-Aztecs by the Aztecs) for the slow decay and decline of Mayan civilization (which effectively started 700 years earlier and left Spain with not a whole lot to subvert or conquer). Pretty painful mistake. He's British, though, so all Mexican civilization is probably the same to him.
Tbh I agree with him.
Even if you manage to pull out numbers that show society is more "stable" in terms of crime rate, unemployment, w/e, thats not what drives society. It's perceptions.
And by all measures of public perception, the world is literally ending.
The depressed will continue to be depressed, people will do drugs. 1 in 8 Americans being alcoholics will not destroy our society. Maybe lessen the number of contributors, yes.
He makes a constant point that there's no religion, creativity or worthwhile science anymore. Is there less creativity in the mainstream as far as art goes? Yes, but that's the result of heavy commercialization in every field. There's a reason there's been 50 fucking Avengers movies and Star Wars is still making money- people see going those movies and tradition that can't be broken and they want to keep up with the characters they know personally. There is still creativity though. Look at "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" or "The Eric Andre Show" or listen to the most recent Daughters album. There is pronounced creativity outside the mainstream. The mainstream is just made to appeal to every audience now, there's a reason fucking "Minions" made a billion dollars at box office. Good science is still being done, too. We "cured" a second person of AIDS recently. That's huge. There's so much going on in science it's hard to keep up.
Now religion- I've never understood this argument. People not believing in the big man in the sky makes no difference as to whether or not a society is great or is collapsing. Religion has no effect on prosperity in modern times, I don't think. It's possibly worse for societies to be religious, looking at the Middle East.
Tbh I agree with him.
Even if you manage to pull out numbers that show society is more "stable" in terms of crime rate, unemployment, w/e, thats not what drives society. It's perceptions.
And by all measures of public perception, the world is literally ending.
All society must collapse at some point, yes. I think it'll take more than people thinking the world is ending for Western society to collapse though, at least America. America is the bastard child of imperialistic England, and has been rebellious in every aspect since it's inception. America is going out with a bang when it does, be it race war, nuke, whatever. Maybe when the "silent majority" that doesn't believe the fucking sky is falling everyday dies off somehow, Western civilization will go under, but I think it will take a lot for that to happen. I believe the 45% of people that didn't vote in 2016 are the silent majority. If they thought orange man was THAT BAD, that 45% would've voted.
I have faith in our species, no matter how bad things get. I have faith that everything's gonna be ok, no matter how bad things get.
One might say I'm a delusional idiot for truly believing that, and perhaps they'd be right.
Eh, fuck the blackpills. I have been in the political scene for literally decades now. I can tell you that right now is the BEST of times because people are finally starting to see the problems with the current systems. Mass Immigration has been serious trouble for a very long time, now people realize it. Censorship has been choking for two decades. Now people are getting tired of it.
The thing is is that this shit, all of it, takes time. Many of you guys woke up for one election and say man this is really bad, and cause a major shift in the political climate. Then get dejected and jaded by the next election saying "well this is taking too long."
Welcome to politics. What matters is long term multi-year cycles. If you focus on the week by week, or focus on what politicians say, you are doing it wrong.
It is bad for your mental health to try to follow the daily DC news cycle unless you are employed by it. Literally 80% of this shit is made by political hacks for political hacks. Ignore it.
Now religion- I've never understood this argument. People not believing in the big man in the sky makes no difference as to whether or not a society is great or is collapsing. Religion has no effect on prosperity in modern times, I don't think. It's possibly worse for societies to be religious, looking at the Middle East.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
Solzhenitsyn:
Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
My favorite argument is the heuristic though: no society (period) has ever existed without a religion of some sort. Except the modern world.
If it were possible to have a stable social order without religion, why hasn't it evolved before current year? Far more likely that any societies that evolved in that direction died out.
There was some guy on some forum somewhere (I think; my sources blend tend to blend together so it might have been some semi-obscure philosopher) who essentially said that religion is a giant bandage that patches up a ton of problems that show up when you start throwing together unrelated people and expect them to not slaughter each other. You take that away, and the morals may persist for a while (through the Freudian superego), but they slowly begin to decay and die out without being renewed from generation to generation. Culminating in eventual social collapse.
There's something fundamentally terrifying about removing a social institution that has been in place in every culture for all recorded history. I just can't see it ending without massive unintended consequences. People don't understand the fragility of large-scale society, or how small of a nudge it takes to upset the delicate balance holding everything together.
So Paul posted a new vid, and it's pretty effing dark. I think it's as dark as he's ever gotten, short of some of his old conspiracy videos. It's kinda interesting for him to rail at even the Republicans, too, he probably expected faster change than whatever we're having.
What do you guys think? Is he being too hyperbolic here? When do you think it's going to end for us, or do you even care? Could we get out of it?
Oh, and on a side note, Paul mistakes the collapse of Aztec civilization (through Hernan Cortes subverting the systematic cuckholdery of the non-Aztecs by the Aztecs) for the slow decay and decline of Mayan civilization (which effectively started 700 years earlier and left Spain with not a whole lot to subvert or conquer). Pretty painful mistake. He's British, though, so all Mexican civilization is probably the same to him.
People have called it before in the last few years and they've been wrong. If the west is in decline, it'll be a very long and drawn out process. I remember Sargon saying the west was doomed unless Trump was elected in 2016 and comparing the state of the country to the fall of Rome. We're fine.
I just don't see the appeal of blackpilling yourself. Fuck are you gonna do? Time travel? You get one life, enjoy it while you can.
I really can't think of any point in the past I would rather live than now. I quite enjoy not having to worry about getting a cut and dying from that, not being drafted in horrifically destructive wars and dodging shit like the free love movement.
Also, a lot of people who say this "collapse of civilization" shit always draw comparisons to Rome. Would that mean all of our problems would be solved by old men having sex with underage boys? Fuck Rome.
Why do people willingly take the black pill? Do they just get off on being miserable?
Besides, the gay frogs told me the world won't end until Hillary Clinton takes her saggy satanic milkers out on live tv while lactatia pole dances on her leg
Also, a lot of people who say this "collapse of civilization" shit always draw comparisons to Rome. Would that mean all of our problems would be solved by old men having sex with underage boys? Fuck Rome.
To be fair that's because the collapse of Rome set society back almost 2,000 years, and because of how unexpected and rapid it was (they ruled almost a quarter of the world population at the peak of their power).
If you were running a channel, why would you ever ask people to subscribe? Why? It's a loose thread that unravels the tone of the entire piece. It's like being a good writer - show, don't tell. If your content appeals, I will sub. Appeal to me and leave it at that while your dignity is still intact.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
Solzhenitsyn:
Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
My favorite argument is the heuristic though: no society (period) has ever existed without a religion of some sort. Except the modern world.
If it were possible to have a stable social order without religion, why hasn't it evolved before current year? Far more likely that any societies that evolved in that direction died out.
There was some guy on some forum somewhere (I think; my sources blend tend to blend together so it might have been some semi-obscure philosopher) who essentially said that religion is a giant bandage that patches up a ton of problems that show up when you start throwing together unrelated people and expect them to not slaughter each other. You take that away, and the morals may persist for a while (through the Freudian superego), but they slowly begin to decay and die out without being renewed from generation to generation. Culminating in eventual social collapse.
There's something fundamentally terrifying about removing a social institution that has been in place in every culture for all recorded history. I just can't see it ending without massive unintended consequences. People don't understand the fragility of large-scale society, or how small of a nudge it takes to upset the delicate balance holding everything together.
The heuristic argument is interesting, I could agree. I think the main reason no society has ever existed before modern times without religion is that fear of god was just too great in previous times to justify not believing in a higher power. Imagine saying, before a nightly sacrifice to the gods in primal times, that you didn't believe in the sun-god-witch-doctor-person. You'd be the sacrifice for that deity, as a heretic. Once we realized that's there's actually little evidence of god and the civilized world stopped punishing people for wrongthink in religion (post scientific revolution iirc), atheism became more prominent.
Despite taking a year of European History, I hadn't heard that Solzhenitsyn quote until today, and I find it very, very interesting.
The atheism used in the Soviet Union was a kind of "militant atheism"- people were convinced religion did nothing for them, and was a "drug". In a way, forgetting god did kind of kill Russia. It's an interesting thought, militant atheism, but it was more so used as a springboard for communism and realism than anything else- it wasn't to free people from oppressive/cult-like religious thinking or anything. Forced, militant atheism, I'm convinced, is a bad idea. Freedom of religion and thought is what's gonna keep modern societies afloat. It's expected nowadays. Law and societal expectation has replaced fear of god.
Religion could definitely keep people together through certain issues, but some (see the Civil War in America- brothers who were the same religion fought against each other over drastically different beliefs as to slavery, the future of America etc) I am not convinced it can keep together.
So Paul posted a new vid, and it's pretty effing dark. I think it's as dark as he's ever gotten, short of some of his old conspiracy videos. It's kinda interesting for him to rail at even the Republicans, too, he probably expected faster change than whatever we're having.
I'm not remotely surprised because, despite all his "Conservative is punk, guys!" talk, he's a liberal leftist through and through. Or, at least, what liberal leftists (real ones) are meant to be: he believes in limited government involvement, he's anti-corporativism, and pro freedom of speech and expression, as well as freedom of association. The fact he believes families and certain values actually work well in society is irrelevant: many liberals believe this in the same way many conservatives are absolute degenerates.
Leftists also tend to be very dramatic, and Paul is overall quite hyperbolic. I honestly wish he could leave Alex Jones so he can make his own content and say what he really is in his mind. It's a bit obvious there is a lot he can't say because he's limited by working with Infowars. There is a video of him being fed up with his boss' antics (I'm not implying he' couldn't honestly like Jones, just that he doesn't agree with what he says).
I'm not remotely surprised because, despite all his "Conservative is punk, guys!" talk, he's a liberal leftist through and through. Or, at least, what liberal leftists (real ones) are meant to be: he believes in limited government involvement, he's anti-corporativism, and pro freedom of speech and expression, as well as freedom of association. The fact he believes families and certain values actually work well in society is irrelevant: many liberals believe this in the same way many conservatives are absolute degenerates.
Leftists also tend to be very dramatic, and Paul is overall quite hyperbolic. I honestly wish he could leave Alex Jones so he can make his own content and say what he really is in his mind. It's a bit obvious there is a lot he can't say because he's limited by working with Infowars. There is a video of him being fed up with his boss' antics (I'm not implying he' couldn't honestly like Jones, just that he doesn't agree with what he says).
?
He's not with infowars anymore, and hasn't been for quite some time. That's why there's no infowars logo at the end of his videos.
Are you trying to say that he's a classical liberal? Because that list of beliefs is classical (not leftist) liberalism. Most conservatives are classical liberals (as are lolbertarians). Classical conservatism (I think its called traditionalism now?), things like belief in monarchy, etc, is dead and taboo.
Clarification please?
Sure, things are bad. But they are only as bad as we perceive them. Because of the internet, we get bombarded with information constantly and it's a fact that most news stories that people like to watch are bad and depressing, because peace dosen't sell in this world.
So yeah, things are bad. But we are far from the collapse of western civilization.
?
He's not with infowars anymore, and hasn't been for quite some time. That's why there's no infowars logo at the end of his videos.
Are you trying to say that he's a classical liberal? Because that list of beliefs is classical (not leftist) liberalism. Most conservatives are classical liberals (as are lolbertarians). Classical conservatism (I think its called traditionalism now?), things like belief in monarchy, etc, is dead and taboo.
Clarification please?
He's been writing for them until this late Monday. Twitter says he's JUST announced he's leaving infowars. I wonder if that's why he tweeted about the "Jew question" (which was, btw, hilarious). He said he's starting his own thing, which is great. Good for him.
And not, I don't think he's a classical liberal: he leans too left for that, but that's just my own opinion on it. I could be wrong.
But yes: what we can call "classic conservatism" is believing in monarchy, meritocracy, goverhment, hierarchies, religion, etc.
