Philosophy Now Forum

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 7:45 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 12:21 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Mar 21, 2025 8:47 pm
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?

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

accelafine wrote:You should read The Kite Runner. Wonderful book. The film was pretty good but not as good as the book.

Wokies want nothing more than the destruction of Israel. This will of course mean the genocide of Israelis. Do you think wokies care? Will they welcome them as genuine asylum seekers? Of course they won't. It will be history repeating itself. Wokies are the modern equivalent of Nazis.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 9:35 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 7:45 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 12:21 pm

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..

accelafine wrote:You should read The Kite Runner. Wonderful book. The film was pretty good but not as good as the book.

Wokies want nothing more than the destruction of Israel. This will of course mean the genocide of Israelis. Do you think wokies care? Will they welcome them as genuine asylum seekers? Of course they won't. It will be history repeating itself. Wokies are the modern equivalent of Nazis.

Is that the one where a Jewish child and a Muslim child are friends and find themselves at war meeting up?

I've heard of it many times, but if it's about the other stuff it doesn't interest me. I just had to shut off 3 utube videos - Muslims taking over city areas in England with their vile 'call to prayer' as they are all out there in PUBLIC places forcing locals to put up with their crap, all bowing down to the birthplace of the king of a paedophile ideology.

Any ban for that? Then investigate the Hadiths that permits it.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 3:47 pm 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

Pistolero wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 10:30 am Best system...pre-Democratic.
Timocracy.

Citizenship is earned....not given.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Mar 21, 2025 3:42 pm 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?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:46 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Mar 21, 2025 3:42 pm 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?

Freedom of speech is only for Fascists.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:50 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:46 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Mar 21, 2025 3:42 pm 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?

Freedom of speech is only for Fascists.

Why do you say that?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:01 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:50 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:46 pm
Freedom of speech is only for Fascists.

Why do you say that?

Because nothing progressives, liberals, the enlightened, the inclusive, the humane, the Rogerian can say can turn that tide. Freedom only goes one way now. To its end.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:21 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:01 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:50 pm

Why do you say that?

Because nothing progressives, liberals, the enlightened, the inclusive, the humane, the Rogerian can say can turn that tide. Freedom only goes one way now. To its end.

I would think that if fascism were to take over and compassion and humaneness become the underdogs then freedom of speech would be necessary for the weak so that they are not marginalized and suppressed by the majority. Freedom of speech seems like a double-edged sword. But it seems essential in order to ensure that society can respond appropriately to situations as they change.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:38 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:21 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:01 pm

Because nothing progressives, liberals, the enlightened, the inclusive, the humane, the Rogerian can say can turn that tide. Freedom only goes one way now. To its end.

I would think that if fascism were to take over and compassion and humaneness become the underdogs then freedom of speech would be necessary for the weak so that they are not marginalized and suppressed by the majority. Freedom of speech seems like a double-edged sword. But it seems essential in order to ensure that society can respond appropriately to situations as they change.

Agreed. But fascists curtail it. Except for fascism. Look at America now. History is being re-written. Johnson tried it here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:47 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:38 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:21 pm

I would think that if fascism were to take over and compassion and humaneness become the underdogs then freedom of speech would be necessary for the weak so that they are not marginalized and suppressed by the majority. Freedom of speech seems like a double-edged sword. But it seems essential in order to ensure that society can respond appropriately to situations as they change.

Agreed. But fascists curtail it. Except for fascism. Look at America now. History is being re-written. Johnson tried it here.

Who is "Johnson"?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:56 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:47 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:38 pm
Agreed. But fascists curtail it. Except for fascism. Look at America now. History is being re-written. Johnson tried it here.

Who is "Johnson"?

3 UK prime ministers & 4 years back.