European News and Poland Thread - part 4

That's what we have back home now.

Steady change is sustainable change and yes, it's a paradox that the only way to make that is to work through grindingly slow bureaucracy.

I am in favor of making migrant life as painful as legally possible to cause them to GTFO and go back home - even if home is a public latrine...

I couldn't agree more.......we don't need that scum in the west.

What you call progress and what I call progress are two very different things.
You are using a very broad paint brush, Mr. Twister
How about, the majority of people who like Moral advancement and improvements of ethical standards.

I can explain...

One man, one woman for life - medieval and retarded

100 "lovers", STDs, 5 kids, each with a different black sperm donor - progressive and commendable

See how simple things can be...Me a genius again...

@Novi
Makes you wonder what kind of poor parenting happened in his childhood that made him turn out to be such a sick and pathetic human being.

There is no linear progress.
While there may be some improvements over time, progressivism is not solely about that. It involves implementing misguided ideas and imposing them on people.
Anyone with common sense and knowledge would oppose this approach.
--

There is no single solution or recipe that guarantees success. Modernity has brought forth the notion that there is one specific formula, which, if followed exactly, will ensure general well-being and prosperity for mankind. This is the biggest delusion. There is no cure-all for the problems of the world.

The divide between left and right, and between conservatives and liberals, arises from a democratic party system that makes it easier for people to categorize themselves into groups. This categorization is limited in its usefulness. Therefore, I prefer not to use these labels, as they are imprecise and do not accurately represent an individual's thoughts, if they have any at all.
---

What majority? Are you referring to those with strong opinions? They make up about 20% of every society; another 20% consists of the criminal class or those who are struggling both morally and materially. The remaining 60% tend to follow the top 20%. If the top 20% has a consensus, the followers will align with their opinion. So what exactly are you asking me here?

Who decides which ideas are "misguided" and which aren't?


That's the old "no labels, no solutions" argument. Don't you think it's a paradox, I-S, how rejecting progress always gets dressed up as wisdom. Clarity isn't delusional; it's how humanity truly moves forward most sustainably.


So... progress is just a niche hobby, the poor are a moral threat, and the masses are sheep? Sounds less like analysis and more like a convenient excuse to ignore change.

Reducing people to percentages and dismissing their agency isn't insight - it's elitism. Progress isn't driven by a chosen few; it's built when ordinary people demand better and refuse to be written off.

Who decides which ideas are "misguided" and which are not? It's often determined by the consequences of their implementation in real life, both in the short term and long term. Additionally, it involves people like us who are qualified to make those decisions. In forums like this, it's not just you and me; there may be two or three others who are also capable of participating in this discussion. Talking about elitism - talking about reality.
--

As for rejecting progress, I don't oppose change if that's what you're referring to. I reject changes that are artificially imposed, presented as gifts to humanity, when their true motives and outcomes are dark and sinister. Recognizing this is a matter of wisdom and realism for me. While you may define it differently, I stand by my choice to call it wisdom.
--

The real question is: who can see clearly, and whose vision is clouded?
--

As for the notion of progress, considering how the world develops, can you be certain that your version of progress is genuinely moving humanity forward? Or will we ultimately witness something akin to regression?
---

I don't reduce people to percentages or dismiss their agency or expectations. There are many factors at play, and I'm simplifying my argument for clarity. What I mean is that even if the majority of people have an agenda, they won't act coherently or achieve the desired change without guidance from the top 20 percent of leaders.

In Western civilization, we are more attuned to people's needs. In some other countries, people may have needs, but they will struggle to fulfill them because their systems won't allow it. These systems often elevate the top 20 percent into a ruling class, and if they reject the system, the system ultimately rejects them-Russia is a prime example of this dynamic.

Looks like you and I both had the same idea about a post 🤒