martins name

Thank you to everyone who has replied❤️ After taking it all in I've come to this conclusion: I've put too much emphasis on Western culture. My attachment to "Western culture" is really just a surface manifestation of my value of healthy vBlue, vOrange and vGreen. What really matters is spiral development. Immigration is the obvious solution here. The key is: what immigration? Two filters should be applied to screen out good fits for Western countries. The first one is economic. Have money or employment, and education. The second is cultural fit. This boils down to orthodox religion, mostly Islam, being incompatible with Western European countries. Muslims should be filtered out and it should be made clear that no mosques should be built in Western nations, and people may burn Qurans. Secular people can all easily move up the spiral but Islam is very good at hindering development. Also, the blue vMeme subvalue of a nation should be primarily loyalty to the nation and not to religions. I feel so much clarity now. Feels good.😀

This is a temporary solution but one that I support. The key is to have a good filter for the people coming in and make it an attractive option for the right people. Eventually, all nations will decline, which is a good thing. But at some point, everyone will have to address the problem. But at that point the will have been improvements in culture, tech, education, and politics, which might make a solution emerge naturally. We just need a string of short-term solutions until we get there. It depends on the type of immigrants. Poor immigrants from Muslim nations don't mix well with European nations. In Sweden, immigrants from the Middle East as a group do none of the things you listed. They strain public resources, have high unemployment, and commit lots of crimes. There are almost no homeless in Sweden we still have a declining birthrate. The problem is less economic than you think. Nordic countries are proof of it. But economics is part of the problem. Urbanization is the biggest contributor to the problem. Houses don't take up most land considering how much land there is in most countries. Otherwise, I like the list. thank you!

I haven't read Marx so if you have, tell me if I'm wrong here. Firstly I like Marx's methodology of class analysis. It looks at relationships between different groups of people to try to find structural exploitation/parasitism between them. I just disagree with his economic analysis of capitalism. How I understand Marx's economic analysis is like this: Image a company being a group of chefs(the workers, proletariat), a recipe that they are following(the company with its organizational structures and intellectual property) and a person that owns the recipe(the bourgeoisie). According to Marx's analysis, since the chefs are doing all the work they are the only ones of value in the process of cooking the food, and therefore the recipe has no value, and thus the person who owns the recipe is parasitical. This is just plain false, the truth is that both the chefs and the recipe are necessary parts of the cooking process and thus, they both have value. And since the recipe has value the owner of the recipe has value. The question to me is how much value do the chefs, the recipe and the recipe creator have for the greater whole and how do we balance the power dynamics between them to reflect their value. Their value is dependent on their effect on the greater whole. The greater whole can never be fully understood, we can only do our best in trying to understand as much of it as best we can. Therefore the workers don't have some objective "real value" that we should perfectly embody. I instead think a proper balance is struck in social democracy. Lots of rights for workers and strong unions. Low taxes for company operations, which lets companies grow and become internationally competitive. Steep progressive tax system for company owners' salaries, incentivizing money to stay in companies. This lets companies grow without capital owners sucking out too much of the value from it.

Depends on the level of education and intelligence of the immigrants. The way immigration has been handled in Sweden it has been an economic burden and is projected to continue being so. We would have to liberalize significantly and lower welfare amount to press people to get jobs, which wouldn't be necessary without immigration. The economy isn't everything. Companies and bankers love employment numbers, but what about the growing criminality, lowered trust, systematic welfare fraud by criminal clans and growing hatred for Swedes among second-generation immigrants? Also, these people are mostly Muslim which is a uniquely resistant religion to reform and socially regressive. In parts of Sweden now women don't feel safe walking around without a veil. When these people get real political power and form their own political identity outside of just voting for the left for economic reasons I fear what might happen. People think Swedish nationalists are bad. Just wait. The foundation of order that the economy is built on is being seriously damaged. National resilience is weakened. A strong economy is holding the country together. Sometimes disasters happen though and the metal of a society is tested. The next 100 years are going to be very challenging. My opinion is that we should've let the demographics get bad to press the culture and politics to figure out a way to be sustainable. I get what you are saying, and on a simplistic level, it seems like a common-sense solution. But the reality of how this has actually turned out in Europe looks like a disaster.

@Princess Arabia I was joking around

High immigration from the Middle East for decades is creating a stage-blue backlash among the native population. It's a fucking disaster, can't believe you haven't heard of this. Is this a prank? It's because of wars in the Middle East. It creates asylum seekers and the EU has laws that we must accept some amount of asylum seekers. This is combined with politicians thinking this is a great opportunity to solve demographic collapse. Something many of these idiots have come to regret, Angela Merkle for example.

What @PurpleTree said. I'm a Swede. Last year we had the second-highest amount of bombings per capita in the world after Mexico. The resentment from the class divide and the inevitable nationalist backlash/stage blue regression are enough to make it a bad idea. It's not about race or skin color, it's about culture. If people of Swedish culture don't have enough children to survive, then Swedish culture will die. This is unless immigrants get integrated at the same pace as new immigrants come, which, at the pace immigration has happened in Europe, has not happened, and doesn't seem realistic. Some amount of immigration is a good thing but when it's so much that it creates whole isolated communities of immigrants that don't integrate it's a problem. I'm guessing you are American? If you were European you would likely have a different view on this matter. This is just wrong, European countries are regressing to blue, and nationalist parties are growing like weed. Once stage blue politicians get the power they will run the country as stage blue does. This is mostly wrong. It can be fixed through better vetting, but most current immigration from the third world is economic. If all the stage orange/green people fled the Middle East, it would never move out of blue. Brain drain is a problem. This is a psychological pathology. One that I also share, and is okay to have, but it should not be the basis of policy. Not everyone has to have kids like not everyone has to be an electrition. I'm not an electrician, not everyone has to be one, but they are needed for a society to function. Also, if we have it your way and Western culture dies whatever culture standing will have to figure this problem out themselves at some point. My position is that we should start to address the problem right away and figure out the cultural technologies that at some point will be required for everyone and lead the world by example.

I disagree with this. Hate is a defense mechanism for love, and we don't hate until we have been hurt. The opposite of love is apathy. You are completely right. I didn't read the whole post like a complete fool🤡 I'm sorry😅

Love makes the world go around. There wouldn't be nations if people didn't love them enough to value them over themselves. Kids require 18 years of care to become adults. That's 18 years of putting their needs over your own. That's 18 years of love per person. To me, love is to want people and things to unfold and evolve. That also happens to be the most fundamental principle of the world. From the first molecules formed to people going through the motions to get to somewhere better. When I look out at the city lights love is what I see. This realization saved my life.

@OBEler Seems like a waste of money if you don't need it. Think about the other things you can buy. A nice surround sound system for movies and music for example. If your housing allows for loud sounds that is.

He made a blog post about being burnt out. He is prob taking it easy and researching stuff.

Let's all shave our heads and make YT videos with gray backgrounds about being god. Give the close-minded video essayists something to talk about.

Nature Documentaries. Period. Maybe the new Netflix series on dinosaurs.

Very interesting. Thank you.

Well said. I wonder what Marx would say if he saw the world today.

@Bobby_2021 @Danioover9000 @Dauntment Thank you all these are some good points. Many small streams make a river. I discredited the idea of modern & post-modern values having much of an impact because of Japan and South Korea, but perhaps I was wrong in thinking they were the same problem. In Japan the problem might be more because of overworking and in Europe it's more of a cultural thing. Still, in both cases, urbanization plays a big role that hasn't been addressed here, and even if we were to wind culture back, we still lose to urbanization. The only way seems to be forward, to a new culture never seen before. Worst case scenario, perhaps as the world population drops there would be more resources and land per person. At some level, life would be so abundant and pleasant that people would want to bring more people into it. And the world population would become stable at that level. That time would only come after China, India, and Africa have gone through the same development and urbanization as the Westernized world.

tnx I differentiate between the value of a corporation and the value of the CEO. The corporation has value because it's a valuable pattern of production(a recipe in my example) that should spread. The CEO should not be allowed to slurp up all the value that the company generates. That's why I think it's good to have steep progressive taxes on the money when it leaves the company and goes into the CEO's wallet. I think Marx doesn't differentiate between capital and its owners. He probably didn't know that they could be separated to the extent they actually could. Love this concept tnx! Was game denial baked into his philosophy or just an unfortunate consequence of how his philosophy was used? From what I've heard, Marx never proposed a political system but just pointed out a problem(in his mind) and that it's inevitably solved. Tho, he didn't say how it will be solved.

@DocWatts Any particular summary of Marxism that you'd recommend?

@DocWatts have you read Marx?

@Danioover9000 Very interesting. I'll start a new thread about this tomorrow. I want to see a lot of different perspectives on this.

@Danioover9000 Any idea how to deal with that?

All things in balance

Also a time with less complexity and little automation. Try making a computer and all its components without the responsiveness and self-organization of capitalism.

Meaning is profound, but also try to heal the emotional wounds that are behind your emptiness. To have meaning is to have a profound future. It's nice to also have a profound now.

Today I was exited to find that @Leo Gura shares the same fascination with Alexander Dugin as me. I've read his book the 4th political theory and concluded that it's completely retarded here is why: It's not a theory but an open ended question that Dugin doesn't have an answer to and the question is retarded. The first theory is marked led economy, the second is state run economy, the third is a hybrid such as in nazi germany. This forms two axis: marked led and state led. These two axis creates four quadrants. Marked lead but not state lead (1st theory, liberal) Not market lead but state lead (2nd, communist) Market lead and state lead hybrid(3rd, fascist) Neither. The 4th political theory is neither. This is retarded and why the question of the fourth political theory doesn't make sense. Generally in philosophy, just looking for a higher number of anything without understanding why a particular number of it exists in the first place is a mistake that lacks first principals thinking. The reason Dugin must believe that this imaginary unicorn must exist is nationalist narcissism. Russia is the greatest nation therefore we are going to go our own way and it's going to be the best way. How? Cuz we are the best. There are some other points about the 4th political theory such as environmentalism and cultural tolerance that can be added to any other political theory and doesn't need a 4th one. I think the criteria of what makes a political theory should be the complexity of the system. Here feudalism is the first one, afterwards liberalism is the second one. Communism and faciam buth stiffels the complexity of the liberalism and are lesser diviations. The third political theory is then social democracy, wich increases complexity though empowering people. This model follows SD and stages can be added before feudalism. Dugin can't accept my model because then he would have to admit that they first have to go though liberalism to social democracy and then Russia wouldn't be a special nation, which he can't accept. Other minor points in the blog post: Russia doesn't deserve to be a great power, or pole in a multipolar world in the sense that it doesn't deserve influence. Bigness shouldn't be misconstrued with greatness. In the nineties Ukraine and Poland had the same GDP, now Poland's is 4 time higher. The difference maker is Poland is integrated with Europe and America, while Ukraine has been bullied by Russia. Russia just sucks in every way. It has the second highest corruption in Europe after Azerbajdzjan. It likes to brag about being a champion for traditional values but has the highest recorded abortion rate in the world. Traditional values to them just means homophobia. They are just natural resource exporters. Leo's 5th political theory doesn't make sense. The 4 theories referes to objective systems, Leo's 5th theory talks about subjective values. These are not on the same scale. Dugin has made a mistake in trying to marry an economic system with postmodern values, it should be repeated. There should be separate but interfacing models for subjective values and economic systems.