/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

[Make a Post]
[X]





Nanonymous No.7846 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>7848 >>7850 >>7862
File: 29776802a488980919d34b2b460b4ae70b1fd64c9d58a911ebd2d170b59eabf5.jpg (dl) (97.09 KiB)
(((Cuckservaives))) are bound to lose. Cuckservaives can only get sort wins.

Not that long ago you could listen to cuckservatives to and hearabout how gay marriage is going to destroy everything now they call liberals "the real homophobes". In the French Revolution you had Revoluionaries vs the Ancien Régime which then became the Moderate Revolutionaries vs Radical Revolutionaries.

It looks like history is a Hegelian dialectic and the sythesis is Progressivism. The thesis is Traditionalism and the anti-thesis is Progressivism. You may know about the Whig View of History repopularized by (((Mencius Moldbug))). The why Moldbug sees it is we are move left in history "Cthulhu may swim slowly. But he only swims left. Isn’t that interesting?". If you go back 100 years ago what is right-wing now is all most left-wing. Go back 200 yeas you see the same thing. Keep on doing it you see the same thing. Things but left but sometimes they move left too fast, then we back a few generations. This is what NS Germany was. It's more like "Cthulhu swims in a zig zag and ever more left".

We are in the Kali Yuga and it's likely Traditionalism just can't win until it's over. Especially if you are trying to keep things the same. What you are trying to keep will change as things around you change.

In the sea of eternity we can only move forward. The only way Traditionalism can win is with an Anti-Tech and Traditionalist revolution.

"The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values."-Ted Kaczynski

Cuckservaives are bound to lose. In the sea of eternity we can only move forward. You can't conserve you need to change. You need to move forward.

Nanonymous No.7847 [D] >>7850
You are assuming that progress in any direction is a good thing. Its not a line you can only go forward/backward on, there are many directions the society can march in.
The whole rapefugee thing going on in europe right now is a good example of that. There is a future of a nigger filled lands that is, without any doubt, a progress in a direction but is a a good direction?
Im not a conservative but ill rather stick with them rather than with those who call themselves progressive these days.

Nanonymous No.7848 [D] >>7850
>>7846
>The thesis is Traditionalism and the anti-thesis is Progressivism.
The thesis/anti-thesis is more like old wisdom vs new knowledge.

The conservative view is: If our society has been following the same traditions for 1000 years and we're doing ok then clearly there's something important in those traditions which we need to preserve.

The progressive view is: Blindly following old traditions is retarded because we should be able to apply our superior modern knowledge and technology to achieve better outcomes.

>The only way Traditionalism can win is with an Anti-Tech and Traditionalist revolution.
It's a fallacy to think the point of conservatism is to prevent all change and keep everything the same forever. The point of conservatism is to slow things down so society doesn't fly off the rails and kill everyone.

Nanonymous No.7850 [D][U][F] >>7851
File: 7cb9c41f7d36332c205c4197388a8a0edf7a62fc2e5c04a95e0c1d95981b1791.jpg (dl) (26.78 KiB)
>>7846
>(((Cuckservaives))) are bound to lose. Cuckservaives can only get sort wins.
The conservatives objective is to slow down progress not to stop it completely, if they manage to slow it down they kind of won. What you call sort wins are just wins. Thinking that conservatives wants to stop progress or go back to the old is your own misconception with the exception of few extremists.
You are confusing conservatives with reactionaries.
>The only way Traditionalism can win is with an Anti-Tech and Traditionalist revolution.
That kind of society is something 99% of people(which includes me) doesn't want, you are free to go innawoods like uncle Ted if you want it, just leave us alone. Btw that kind of society would be like the Talibans in Afghanistan, no thank you.

>>7847
>You are assuming that progress in any direction is a good thing.
Agree. It's all about choosing the best course of progress and the one that causes less problems.
>Im not a conservative but ill rather stick with them
It doesn't have to be a binary choice, there are more moderate and less crazy progressives, they are rare these days though.

>>7848
Agree with everything.
You described only the extremes of the conservative and progressive views though, there is a lot inbetween.

Nanonymous No.7851 [D]
>>7850
>Blindly following old traditions is retarded because we should be able to apply our superior modern knowledge and technology to achieve better outcomes.

In most cases it's "tried and true" vs "new and unproven". One analogy would be the great SysV Init vs systemd drama, systemd was rammed through and not thoroughly tested. The scope of the project keeps expanding, so there are no brakes on the train. This is in contrast to the more constrained change seen in the other alternative init systems like OpenRC, Runit, etc.

Modern "Progressives" will try to supplant anything that isn't nu, all past proof of concepts must be destroyed to lessen the resistance to the push for unproven concepts. There is always a necessary "leap of faith" where the "old way" must be jettisoned and the "nu way" implemented.

Nanonymous No.7852 [D] >>7853
Ted made an interesting point regarding the growth of society, and the decreasing amount of natural selection it exceriences as it grows. What this leads to is, that society will become more and more out of sync with reality as a function of its size, but not neccessarily as a function of its technological progression.

The fewer societies you have, that can try out things, the more fatal the first failure will be.

I'd really like to write a letter to ted... But then I'll end up on a watchlist.

Nanonymous No.7853 [D][U][F] >>7854 >>7858
File: 254832a3e9e575e53698ab711d13d88002e7c6b7edc8c2216b074537dcc90ed0.gif (dl) (815.37 KiB)
>>7852
>But then I'll end up on a watchlist
We are all on some watchlist here...

Nanonymous No.7854 [D]
>>7853
You're probably right, anon. At least we're on the watchlist we came on, when we got an our first ID, maybe even the birth certificate.

I'll have to think about it. I really like uncle ted, and I don't want him to rot in prison without knowing...

Nanonymous No.7857 [D]
While he doesn't have the freedom to leave supermax prison in Colorado, he is in a giant concrete bunker with parameter fencing which keep things out too.

Nanonymous No.7858 [D]
>>7853
>We are all on some watchlist here
What is your rank on that watchlist?

Nanonymous No.7862 [D] >>7863
>>7846
Not really. Everything will be conserved and preserved as it must, and all leftists will be killed. there is no future for leftists. There is no way to hold information anymore. All leftists will die en masse.

Nanonymous No.7863 [D]
>>7862
You just need to subvert the popular information channels with self-terminating memes that take a while to fulfill. You can already see this to a certain degree with the attention of the masses beamed towards superficial/narcissistic objectives that weaken society as a whole. A good example are the "quit your job and travel the world" social media influencers.