Liberal Democracy vs. Totalitarianism

[Gary Childress]

If this forum were in Russia, China, or North Korea, the forum would have banned a few members a long time ago for sewing dissent against official policies of Western democracies and speaking up on behalf of official enemies.

The question I have is how can liberal democracies expect to survive against totalitarian regimes that employ propaganda freely to citizens of liberal democracies while those regimes strictly forbid or neutralize dissent within their own populations. It seems like totalitarian regimes have a distinct advantage over liberal democracies because totalitarian regimes strictly and forcibly shut down dissent while liberal democracies generally do not.

How can liberal democracies prevail against totalitarian regimes under such a seeming disadvantage? Or should we not prevail against totalitarian regimes?

[LuckyR]

If this forum were in Russia, China, or North Korea, the forum would have banned a few members a long time ago for sewing dissent against official policies of Western democracies and speaking up on behalf of official enemies.

The question I have is how can liberal democracies expect to survive against totalitarian regimes that employ propaganda freely to citizens of liberal democracies while those regimes strictly forbid or neutralize dissent within their own populations. It seems like totalitarian regimes have a distinct advantage over liberal democracies because totalitarian regimes strictly and forcibly shut down dissent while liberal democracies generally do not.

How can liberal democracies prevail against totalitarian regimes under such a seeming disadvantage? Or should we not prevail against totalitarian regimes?

I guess I don't understand the meaning of "prevail" in your context. Are you assuming that democracies are vulnerable to other totalitarian nations, or to internal forces?

[FlashDangerpants]

How can liberal democracies prevail against totalitarian regimes under such a seeming disadvantage? Or should we not prevail against totalitarian regimes?

The short answer is that totalitarianism is inherently expensive because it requires clientelism which in turn requires redirection of state funds and renders them economically uncompetitive. The only person here who would look at an anti-liberal shithole full of dirt-poor downtrodden peasants and say "we should be more like that" is Jacobi, and that's just because they white and tolerate extreme racism and homophobia which is all it really takes to impress that guy. Everyone else prefers not to be downtrodden and not to be poor - but I don't recommend speculating about the order of those priorities.

[Gary Childress]

If this forum were in Russia, China, or North Korea, the forum would have banned a few members a long time ago for sewing dissent against official policies of Western democracies and speaking up on behalf of official enemies.

The question I have is how can liberal democracies expect to survive against totalitarian regimes that employ propaganda freely to citizens of liberal democracies while those regimes strictly forbid or neutralize dissent within their own populations. It seems like totalitarian regimes have a distinct advantage over liberal democracies because totalitarian regimes strictly and forcibly shut down dissent while liberal democracies generally do not.

How can liberal democracies prevail against totalitarian regimes under such a seeming disadvantage? Or should we not prevail against totalitarian regimes?

I guess I don't understand the meaning of "prevail" in your context. Are you assuming that democracies are vulnerable to other totalitarian nations, or to internal forces?

It is my perception that the West is on a very delicate footing right now. If China, Russia, and N. Korea decide to join forces to make aggressive moves and invade their respective enemies (Taiwan, Europe, and S. Korea), then there doesn't seem to be much to stop them. In effect, the West is at the mercy of the totalitarian nations because 1) they are militarily stronger together than the West is and 2) They don't have to worry about dissent and civil disobedience among their citizenry over starting unjust wars because, unlike Western democracies, they will simply crush dissent and shut their nations off to outside journalism and opinions. That worries me.

[FlashDangerpants]

If this forum were in Russia, China, or North Korea, the forum would have banned a few members a long time ago for sewing dissent against official policies of Western democracies and speaking up on behalf of official enemies.

The question I have is how can liberal democracies expect to survive against totalitarian regimes that employ propaganda freely to citizens of liberal democracies while those regimes strictly forbid or neutralize dissent within their own populations. It seems like totalitarian regimes have a distinct advantage over liberal democracies because totalitarian regimes strictly and forcibly shut down dissent while liberal democracies generally do not.

How can liberal democracies prevail against totalitarian regimes under such a seeming disadvantage? Or should we not prevail against totalitarian regimes?

I guess I don't understand the meaning of "prevail" in your context. Are you assuming that democracies are vulnerable to other totalitarian nations, or to internal forces?

It is my perception that the West is on a very delicate footing right now. If China, Russia, and N. Korea decide to join forces to make aggressive moves and invade their respective enemies (Taiwan, Europe, and S. Korea), then there doesn't seem to be much to stop them. In effect, the West is at the mercy of the totalitarian nations because 1) they are militarily stronger together than the West is and 2) They don't have to worry about dissent and civil disobedience among their citizenry over starting unjust wars because, unlike Western democracies, they will simply crush dissent and shut their nations off to outside journalism and opinions. That worries me.

Your information sources are suspect. Nobody is concerned that NK could invade the south, they definitely couldn't, their equipment is antique. The problem is that they have thousands of artillery pieces on the border, and South Korea has millions of civilians within range of them, so the first 48 hours of any war would be the most gruesome ever. But NK wouldn't be able to invade, the countries with the satellites cannot be invaded by those without them.

Russia's army has been fought to standstill by their small poor and ill-equipped neighbour that doesn't even have any air force or navy to speak of. They have lost nearly all of their tanks. They recently sent wounded men on crutches back to the frontlines and used donkeys to bring their supplies to them. This is definitely not an army that could invade Europe.

The Chinese constantly worry that theirs is the vulnerable form of government more than ours. They rely on a bargain to stay in power, where they deliver competent government to promote prosperity, and the people choose to benefit from that prosperity and stay out of politics. It is already strained by a huge credit problem, collapsing property market and a demographic reversal that implies China will grow old before it ever grows rich now. Invading Taiwan would upend it entirely.

[Age]

If this forum were in Russia, China, or North Korea, the forum would have banned a few members a long time ago for sewing dissent against official policies of Western democracies and speaking up on behalf of official enemies.

The question I have is how can liberal democracies expect to survive against totalitarian regimes that employ propaganda freely to citizens of liberal democracies while those regimes strictly forbid or neutralize dissent within their own populations. It seems like totalitarian regimes have a distinct advantage over liberal democracies because totalitarian regimes strictly and forcibly shut down dissent while liberal democracies generally do not.

How can liberal democracies prevail against totalitarian regimes under such a seeming disadvantage? Or should we not prevail against totalitarian regimes?

I guess I don't understand the meaning of "prevail" in your context. Are you assuming that democracies are vulnerable to other totalitarian nations, or to internal forces?

It is my perception that the West is on a very delicate footing right now. If China, Russia, and N. Korea decide to join forces to make aggressive moves and invade their respective enemies (Taiwan, Europe, and S. Korea), then there doesn't seem to be much to stop them. In effect, the West is at the mercy of the totalitarian nations because 1) they are militarily stronger together than the West is and 2) They don't have to worry about dissent and civil disobedience among their citizenry over starting unjust wars because, unlike Western democracies, they will simply crush dissent and shut their nations off to outside journalism and opinions. That worries me.

If 'they' are STRONGER, and they WANT TO ATTACK and/or TAKE OVER, then 'you' should just GIVE UP, correct?

After all there is NO use in FIGHTING, WARRING, and DYING WITH 'an enemy' who is STRONGER and who WILL EVENTUALLY TAKE OVER, anyway.

[Impenitent]

you will obey your governmental master

doesn't matter where you are

you think your "vote" matters?

you will say what we deem as politically correct and nothing beside from fear of doxing (how's that 'freedom of speech' feel now?)

you will obey

-Imp

[LuckyR]

If this forum were in Russia, China, or North Korea, the forum would have banned a few members a long time ago for sewing dissent against official policies of Western democracies and speaking up on behalf of official enemies.

The question I have is how can liberal democracies expect to survive against totalitarian regimes that employ propaganda freely to citizens of liberal democracies while those regimes strictly forbid or neutralize dissent within their own populations. It seems like totalitarian regimes have a distinct advantage over liberal democracies because totalitarian regimes strictly and forcibly shut down dissent while liberal democracies generally do not.

How can liberal democracies prevail against totalitarian regimes under such a seeming disadvantage? Or should we not prevail against totalitarian regimes?

I guess I don't understand the meaning of "prevail" in your context. Are you assuming that democracies are vulnerable to other totalitarian nations, or to internal forces?

It is my perception that the West is on a very delicate footing right now. If China, Russia, and N. Korea decide to join forces to make aggressive moves and invade their respective enemies (Taiwan, Europe, and S. Korea), then there doesn't seem to be much to stop them. In effect, the West is at the mercy of the totalitarian nations because 1) they are militarily stronger together than the West is and 2) They don't have to worry about dissent and civil disobedience among their citizenry over starting unjust wars because, unlike Western democracies, they will simply crush dissent and shut their nations off to outside journalism and opinions. That worries me.

I disagree, but for a different reason, namely that (especially for China) war is bad for business and making coin from a country (as opposed to occupying it) is the goal.

[Gary Childress]

I guess I don't understand the meaning of "prevail" in your context. Are you assuming that democracies are vulnerable to other totalitarian nations, or to internal forces?

It is my perception that the West is on a very delicate footing right now. If China, Russia, and N. Korea decide to join forces to make aggressive moves and invade their respective enemies (Taiwan, Europe, and S. Korea), then there doesn't seem to be much to stop them. In effect, the West is at the mercy of the totalitarian nations because 1) they are militarily stronger together than the West is and 2) They don't have to worry about dissent and civil disobedience among their citizenry over starting unjust wars because, unlike Western democracies, they will simply crush dissent and shut their nations off to outside journalism and opinions. That worries me.

I disagree, but for a different reason, namely that (especially for China) war is bad for business and making coin from a country (as opposed to occupying it) is the goal.

Maybe China is behaving itself. Russia, however, seems to have taken up full assault on the International order. If Putin has to wreck the entire world, he'll keep himself in power.

https://thebulletin.org/2025/03/russian ... -chatbots/

[accelafine]

How can liberal democracies prevail against totalitarian regimes under such a seeming disadvantage? Or should we not prevail against totalitarian regimes?

The short answer is that totalitarianism is inherently expensive because it requires clientelism which in turn requires redirection of state funds and renders them economically uncompetitive. The only person here who would look at an anti-liberal shithole full of dirt-poor downtrodden peasants and say "we should be more like that" is Jacobi, and that's just because they are white and tolerate extreme racism and homophobia which is all it really takes to impress that guy. Everyone else prefers not to be downtrodden and not to be poor - but I don't recommend speculating about the order of those priorities.

Any specific country you are referring to here? Surely there must be a 'white shit-hole' full of 'shitty white racist' people that you can stereotype and offend, while carefully avoiding all the non-white 'shitty racist homophobic shit-holes'. You are such a coward

[FlashDangerpants]

Surely there must be a 'white shit-hole' full of 'shitty white racist' people that you can stereotype and offend

That would be your house.

[accelafine]

Surely there must be a 'white shit-hole' full of 'shitty white racist' people that you can stereotype and offend

That would be your house.

Oh how very mature. Entirely predictable of course.

[attofishpi]

How can liberal democracies prevail against totalitarian regimes under such a seeming disadvantage? Or should we not prevail against totalitarian regimes?

The short answer is that totalitarianism is inherently expensive because it requires clientelism which in turn requires redirection of state funds and renders them economically uncompetitive. The only person here who would look at an anti-liberal shithole full of dirt-poor downtrodden peasants and say "we should be more like that" is Jacobi, and that's just because they white and tolerate extreme racism and homophobia which is all it really takes to impress that guy. Everyone else prefers not to be downtrodden and not to be poor - but I don't recommend speculating about the order of those priorities.

Regarding the red bit in particular, it's the likes of the extreme left, the likes of Flash insisting on open borders and let anyone in attitude that is going to cause the downfall of liberalism and permit something very opposite in the form of Islamic Totalitarianism (Caliphate) - Britain is being invaded and voted out of office, no longer required, the new Islamic regime is on its way - thanks to the unpatriotic, anyone that proudly flies a Union or St George flag is a racist, rainbow people (* well, just how fucking dumb are these people?)

[accelafine]

How can liberal democracies prevail against totalitarian regimes under such a seeming disadvantage? Or should we not prevail against totalitarian regimes?

The short answer is that totalitarianism is inherently expensive because it requires clientelism which in turn requires redirection of state funds and renders them economically uncompetitive. The only person here who would look at an anti-liberal shithole full of dirt-poor downtrodden peasants and say "we should be more like that" is Jacobi, and that's just because they white and tolerate extreme racism and homophobia which is all it really takes to impress that guy. Everyone else prefers not to be downtrodden and not to be poor - but I don't recommend speculating about the order of those priorities.

Regarding the red bit in particular, it's the likes of the extreme left, the likes of Flash insisting on open borders and let anyone in attitude that is going to cause the downfall of liberalism and permit something very opposite in the form of Islamic Totalitarianism (Caliphate) - Britain is being invaded and voted out of office, no longer required, the new Islamic regime is on its way - thanks to the unpatriotic, anyone that proudly flies a Union or St George flag is a racist, rainbow people (* well, just how fucking dumb are these people?)

He doesn't care. Men are just fine and dandy in islamist states, unless you are homosexual, apart from the Taliban version of 'homosexual', which is ok with them-- encouraged in fact. Attempting to get into their heads is inviting insaniy.
Have you seen that really weird video doing the rounds on X of a mullah being...ahem...'attended to' by another man? The hypocrisy is staggering.
I would be happy to have 'open borders' for Jewish people, but why does it always have to be the yukkiest degenerate 'asylum seekers' that wokies are always in favour of? What's the bet that they would be the first to complain if the asylum seekers were all Jewish?

[attofishpi]

The short answer is that totalitarianism is inherently expensive because it requires clientelism which in turn requires redirection of state funds and renders them economically uncompetitive. The only person here who would look at an anti-liberal shithole full of dirt-poor downtrodden peasants and say "we should be more like that" is Jacobi, and that's just because they white and tolerate extreme racism and homophobia which is all it really takes to impress that guy. Everyone else prefers not to be downtrodden and not to be poor - but I don't recommend speculating about the order of those priorities.

Regarding the red bit in particular, it's the likes of the extreme left, the likes of Flash insisting on open borders and let anyone in attitude that is going to cause the downfall of liberalism and permit something very opposite in the form of Islamic Totalitarianism (Caliphate) - Britain is being invaded and voted out of office, no longer required, the new Islamic regime is on its way - thanks to the unpatriotic, anyone that proudly flies a Union or St George flag is a racist, rainbow people (* well, just how fucking dumb are these people?)

He doesn't care. Men are just fine and dandy in islamist states, unless you are homosexual, apart from the Taliban version of 'homosexual', which is ok with them-- encouraged in fact. Attempting to get into their heads is inviting insaniy.
Have you seen that really weird video doing the rounds on X of a mullah being...ahem...'attended to' by another man? The hypocrisy is staggering.
I would be happy to have 'open borders' for Jewish people, but why does it always have to be the yukkiest degenerate 'asylum seekers' that wokies are always in favour of? What's the bet that they would be the first to complain if the asylum seekers were all Jewish?

Nah, haven't seen that one - yes more Jews please, very intelligent people.

Did you know about this - I heard a female ex-Muslim utuber talking about it last year, then a video on it came up in Utube - I haven't read the WIKI but, seems forcing women to be covered head to toe possibly causes men to find little boys attractive,honestly, these people are disgusting, but I am a racist to point it out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

Bacha bāzī [1] (/ˈbɑːtʃɑːbɑːˈzi/, Pashto and Dari: بچه بازی, lit. 'boy play') refers to a pederasty practice in Afghanistan (*originated in Pakistan) in which men exploit and enslave adolescent boys for entertainment and/or sexual abuse.[2][3][4][5] The man exploiting the young boy is called a bacha baz (literally "boy player").[3] Typically, the bacha baz forces the bacha to dress in women's clothing and dance for entertainment.[3][6] The practice is reported to continue into the present as of 2025.

I guess that's the level of "liberalism" the LEFT wing rainbow people are aiming for..