Nope, here I disagree completely and absolutely! It is very important who exactly said proposal comes from. In a sense you could say that ad hominem is completely justified in this case.
So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.
The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.
It makes perfect sense they will start restricting the internet under the auspice of "defending children" from harmful content. This is the best strategy because they know everyone can get behind this, especially right-minded people who are currently more wary of censorship and government overreach in their lives. They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game. So as you can see, while I acknowledge their intentions, that in no way changes the fact that porn is bad and should be restricted on pure principle, even if Satan himself is enforcing the restriction.
They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game.
This I do agree with. Regarding restrictions though... I think I'm gonna go with "no" on this one. I don't think it should be restricted. That should be parent's job and not government's.
Weapons are dangerous too. Should those be restricted? What about knives? In UK nanny state they have to show passport before buying a fucking knife. Do you think that is ok? Why not take this a step further? Everyone should not only prove their age when buying a knife, but also register all their knives in possession and write an explanation for each one of them why they need it. Whould you be on board for such a proposition as well? I don't mean this as a strawman, but more like an illustration of what a dangerous slippery slope this really is.
That's a false equivalence. Weapons are tools and as such are neither good or bad inherently. It's all about how they're being used. Coming from a Christian perspective, it's easy to see degeneracy is inherently bad. It shouldn't be tolerated in society to begin with but you see it as a "freedom" because you've been desensitized to it as it became widespread. In reality, it's the opposite of freedom - sin enslaves you and is death.
Sadly, the US is premised on a false revolutionary liberal dialectic of a struggle between the state and the individual, between the public and the private. This makes it fertile ground for individuals demanding rights and liberties that ultimately destroy them, because people are easily manipulated and deceived. The function of a strong state (a monarchy) is to protect against all kind of enemies and to take care of the spiritual and physical prospering of the people.
This is why jews historically promote revolution and democracy against monarchical states - they know a good monarch serves as a buffer between their power (banks, "free trade" and media) and the people. Democracy on the other hand is easy to manipulate via their powers.
Of course they don't really care for democracy or equality, they use it as a chess piece to further their agenda. Once society is weakened through liberalism and degeneracy, they get more open about their project and show the true face of their regime, which is authoritarian (1984 and any totalitarian communist regime). We're at that stage now.
The function of a strong state (a monarchy) is to protect against all kind of enemies and to take care of the spiritual and physical prospering of the people.
In theory, yes, but I'm not sure it has ever been the case. Most probably it has always been like it is now. It's just that they could no longer sell fairytale about hereditary rulership to the public, so they came up with this thing called democracy. Most people were successfully fooled by it for a while, but now the masses are waking up to the absolute farce of it, so they have to come up with something new and come up quick. I suspect they'll try to sell AI to the public as some kind of neutral, incorruptable and just form of government. Which it very obviously is not.
In any case, I don't see a fundamental difference between monarchy and that abomination we have now. It is all the same. Small group of elite is fucking over everyone else. Probably always has been like that. Only decorations, narratives and justification change.
To believe that any government cares about its citizens is a bit naive in my opinion. Which brings us to voluntaryism (which is not the same as liberalism as you seem to believe). Basically, very short version is that humanity has to get rid of superstitious belief in this thing called authority. Any authority. The problem is not that the government is bad or that politians are bad, or that the form of government is not the right one. The problem is that it exists at all and that masses believe in it.
In theory, yes, but I'm not sure it has ever been the case. Most probably it has always been like it is now. It's just that they could no longer sell fairytale about hereditary rulership to the public, so they came up with this thing called democracy.
Democracy was well known since Ancient Greece. Plato wrote about the various forms of government and noted democracy to be one of the least desirable (compared to republic and aristocracy). Saying it has always been like this and there is no real change on a very deep level is naive and symptomatic of a modern cynicism driven by ignorance and false historical narratives - it is a cope. I'd say we are at the lowest point of out European civilization for the past 2000 years and nearing the end of it really (as historians like Oswald Spengler famously predicted in Decline of the West).
It's a very complex subject, but the historical fact of the matter is that there was a paradigm shift around the Enlightenment revolutionary period (17-18-19c) that led to the collapse of the Old world and of traditional institutions and society. For thousands of years it made sense to people that the world followed a divinely ordained hierarchy (patriarchy) and everyone had a firm place in it. It was a top-down hierarchy with God at the top, and under Him was the priest class of the Church and the king with his aristocracy. Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers. This was not viewed as a power dialectic resulting in oppression (a jewish concept btw), but as a chain of command where all parties did their part towards a common goal (the Greek called it symphonia). It was evident for everyone that power came from above (top-down), and not from below (bottom-up).
Now talmudic jews were always unimpressed with this and came up with ideas that challenged the natural order and hierarchy. Their main project came to be known as communism, but they also made offshoots to cover more ground/minds - anarchy, democracy, liberalism, socialism, etc. They realized that the only way to destroy the old world was through violent revolutions aided by massive propaganda at the top levels of academia and culture which they managed to infiltrate through secret societies (really spy networks) and financial prowess (usury). They weaponized all kinds of degenerate ideas to subvert the existing hierarchy and people's faith in it - atheism, materialism, feminism, individualism, freemasonry, marxism, free global market, drug trafficking, degradation of culture and art, sexual immorality and deviancy (later called sexual revolution), darwinism, freudism, etc.
So no, it is not that the rulers of the old world could no longer sell their worldview to the people and the "enlightened masses" out of their own free will got to arms and liberated themselves from the tyranny of superstition and slavery. That's how the (((liberal))) history propaganda goes about what took place. What happened was that some people got brainwashed by jewed up masonic ideas of "liberty, equality, fraternity" and took part in the jewish revolutions that successfully established a new era of humanity - our beloved NWO.
Basically, very short version is that humanity has to get rid of superstitious belief in this thing called authority. Any authority. The problem is not that the government is bad or that politians are bad, or that the form of government is not the right one. The problem is that it exists at all and that masses believe in it.
So anarchy. Authority follows logically from the existence of hierarchy and power. The world you're describing doesn't exist and can't exist - it is logically impossible unless people somehow live completely alienated from one another, kinda in their own metaverse.
So a thing can't be true because WEF says it? That's a logical fallacy. We're not talking about their intentions but about the truthfulness of the proposition made. In this case "porn is bad for society and should be highly restricted" is a true proposition, no ifs or buts. Its truth value is independent of the person saying it and it will be true even if a gooner or the owner of OF said it.
The issue of the technocratic elite tightening their regime and using authoritarian measures to do it is distinct from it, or at least my point was they can be viewed separately. Both radical leftist and "based" right populist policies can be used to move their agenda. Case in point - D.J. Trump and Elon.
It makes perfect sense they will start restricting the internet under the auspice of "defending children" from harmful content. This is the best strategy because they know everyone can get behind this, especially right-minded people who are currently more wary of censorship and government overreach in their lives. They want to get to China level restriction ideally and they're playing the long game. So as you can see, while I acknowledge their intentions, that in no way changes the fact that porn is bad and should be restricted on pure principle, even if Satan himself is enforcing the restriction.
This I do agree with. Regarding restrictions though... I think I'm gonna go with "no" on this one. I don't think it should be restricted. That should be parent's job and not government's.
Weapons are dangerous too. Should those be restricted? What about knives? In UK nanny state they have to show passport before buying a fucking knife. Do you think that is ok? Why not take this a step further? Everyone should not only prove their age when buying a knife, but also register all their knives in possession and write an explanation for each one of them why they need it. Whould you be on board for such a proposition as well? I don't mean this as a strawman, but more like an illustration of what a dangerous slippery slope this really is.
That's a false equivalence. Weapons are tools and as such are neither good or bad inherently. It's all about how they're being used. Coming from a Christian perspective, it's easy to see degeneracy is inherently bad. It shouldn't be tolerated in society to begin with but you see it as a "freedom" because you've been desensitized to it as it became widespread. In reality, it's the opposite of freedom - sin enslaves you and is death.
Sadly, the US is premised on a false revolutionary liberal dialectic of a struggle between the state and the individual, between the public and the private. This makes it fertile ground for individuals demanding rights and liberties that ultimately destroy them, because people are easily manipulated and deceived. The function of a strong state (a monarchy) is to protect against all kind of enemies and to take care of the spiritual and physical prospering of the people. This is why jews historically promote revolution and democracy against monarchical states - they know a good monarch serves as a buffer between their power (banks, "free trade" and media) and the people. Democracy on the other hand is easy to manipulate via their powers.
Of course they don't really care for democracy or equality, they use it as a chess piece to further their agenda. Once society is weakened through liberalism and degeneracy, they get more open about their project and show the true face of their regime, which is authoritarian (1984 and any totalitarian communist regime). We're at that stage now.
In theory, yes, but I'm not sure it has ever been the case. Most probably it has always been like it is now. It's just that they could no longer sell fairytale about hereditary rulership to the public, so they came up with this thing called democracy. Most people were successfully fooled by it for a while, but now the masses are waking up to the absolute farce of it, so they have to come up with something new and come up quick. I suspect they'll try to sell AI to the public as some kind of neutral, incorruptable and just form of government. Which it very obviously is not.
In any case, I don't see a fundamental difference between monarchy and that abomination we have now. It is all the same. Small group of elite is fucking over everyone else. Probably always has been like that. Only decorations, narratives and justification change.
To believe that any government cares about its citizens is a bit naive in my opinion. Which brings us to voluntaryism (which is not the same as liberalism as you seem to believe). Basically, very short version is that humanity has to get rid of superstitious belief in this thing called authority. Any authority. The problem is not that the government is bad or that politians are bad, or that the form of government is not the right one. The problem is that it exists at all and that masses believe in it.
Democracy was well known since Ancient Greece. Plato wrote about the various forms of government and noted democracy to be one of the least desirable (compared to republic and aristocracy). Saying it has always been like this and there is no real change on a very deep level is naive and symptomatic of a modern cynicism driven by ignorance and false historical narratives - it is a cope. I'd say we are at the lowest point of out European civilization for the past 2000 years and nearing the end of it really (as historians like Oswald Spengler famously predicted in Decline of the West).
It's a very complex subject, but the historical fact of the matter is that there was a paradigm shift around the Enlightenment revolutionary period (17-18-19c) that led to the collapse of the Old world and of traditional institutions and society. For thousands of years it made sense to people that the world followed a divinely ordained hierarchy (patriarchy) and everyone had a firm place in it. It was a top-down hierarchy with God at the top, and under Him was the priest class of the Church and the king with his aristocracy. Since our ancestors lived in Christian states and were Christians themselves, they strongly believed that monarchs got their mandate to rule by God Himself (as shown in the Bible). Monarchs had a duty to serve their people and the people had a duty to serve their rulers. This was not viewed as a power dialectic resulting in oppression (a jewish concept btw), but as a chain of command where all parties did their part towards a common goal (the Greek called it symphonia). It was evident for everyone that power came from above (top-down), and not from below (bottom-up).
Now talmudic jews were always unimpressed with this and came up with ideas that challenged the natural order and hierarchy. Their main project came to be known as communism, but they also made offshoots to cover more ground/minds - anarchy, democracy, liberalism, socialism, etc. They realized that the only way to destroy the old world was through violent revolutions aided by massive propaganda at the top levels of academia and culture which they managed to infiltrate through secret societies (really spy networks) and financial prowess (usury). They weaponized all kinds of degenerate ideas to subvert the existing hierarchy and people's faith in it - atheism, materialism, feminism, individualism, freemasonry, marxism, free global market, drug trafficking, degradation of culture and art, sexual immorality and deviancy (later called sexual revolution), darwinism, freudism, etc.
So no, it is not that the rulers of the old world could no longer sell their worldview to the people and the "enlightened masses" out of their own free will got to arms and liberated themselves from the tyranny of superstition and slavery. That's how the (((liberal))) history propaganda goes about what took place. What happened was that some people got brainwashed by jewed up masonic ideas of "liberty, equality, fraternity" and took part in the jewish revolutions that successfully established a new era of humanity - our beloved NWO.
So anarchy. Authority follows logically from the existence of hierarchy and power. The world you're describing doesn't exist and can't exist - it is logically impossible unless people somehow live completely alienated from one another, kinda in their own metaverse.