A society depends on its material situation above all, which allows or not individualism. It is capitalism which creates the material comfort which the world benefits from despite inequalities. Without capitalism, there is no individual freedom. Progressivism is subject to technical progress because only the latter allows the emergence of new ideas (industry has replaced slavery, the need for tourism has allowed paid holidays, technical progress in medicine extends life). The goal of capitalism is neither good nor evil but profit which pushes it to graft itself onto any fight (like women's rights and emancipation at work so that they compete with men). Sexual liberation is due to technical progress and enslaves women by objectifying them. The development of the tertiary sector and household appliances have also played a role in the emancipation of women. Politics and morality create nothing, it is technology that shapes morals. The case of an idea preceding technology is universal income, which is for the moment only a utopia that belongs only to the world of ideas and not to reality. Social progress is dependent on technical progress. Gender dysphoria is a disease that really exists, but it should not be made a fashion to stand out, just like personality disorder. Is it moral to help a sick person to go to the end of his delusions (transition, suicide, etc.)? And why have we made the madness of some a norm? The flagship argument is that of individual freedom, which crushes all the rules of society and common morality. The body is seen as a limit to the omnipotence of human will. The human will to power would then be to get rid of one's humanity. Man wants to have and be more and more. The trans-human wants to stand out individually, even if it is through monstrosity. To refuse transhumanism would be to be reactionary. Progressivism is the perfect ally of capitalism because it is submissive and blinded by scientific progress. The progressive is the slave of progress living in the illusion of free will while following a path traced for him without ever questioning it. It is not because it is possible that it should be done. Consuming is satisfying one's impulses to avoid frustration, and to satisfy all one's impulses, one must abolish all forms of constraint: humanity, morality, social conventions. The search for progressive happiness is an individualistic prison. Progressivism is consumption that benefits capitalism. Happiness should not be a goal, it is a possible consequence of our actions and accomplishments.
Jean BaretFrench profitability is too low compared to other countries and only hard work by a willing director can avoid offshoring. The lost industries brought in return more affordable imported products and the state went into debt to hide the reality, increasing the weight of the state. GDP per capita has been falling in France since the 1970s and is now negative, at which time the French state chose to go into debt to finance the lifestyle acquired until now instead of adjusting spending. The Euro was a shock, it abolished the inter-currencies exchange rate in favor of an administration disconnected from reality imposing ideological anti-competition measures to increase the power of administrations and to reduce the freedoms of entrepreneurs, while blocking the birth of a European champion. With the Euro, the adjustment variable is no longer the exchange rate but the industrial apparatus. The countries benefiting from it must subsidize the countries that are victims of it. The perverse effect is that the artificial control of the central bank that reduces rates also reduces the rents of countries in the positive and the entrepreneurship of countries in the negative. After the 2008 crisis, the value of European banks has only fallen while the American ones have gotten back on their feet. The increase in the standard of living depends on a gain in productivity and, in France, productivity is falling. We must internationalize our savings.
Grand AngleWho are the real parasites? Poor who leeches the rich or rich that rely on their underpaid labor? Rich and poor have literal walls between them to avoid their interaction. If a poor cross this arbitrary line, it's called out by the rich. If a rich cross the line, it's voluntary disrespect from their part. What keeps us poor and obeying is that we have no safety nets, meaning taking a risk is almost never an option. We praise rich people even though they got there by inheritance, luck, and mass exploitation but not merit. The poor respects the awful elite that doesn't respects them back. Instead of going after the elite that controls the system, poor people target other poor people to get the scraps. The rich have so much they don't notice when something's missing while the poor can barely take care of themselves. The lack of community serves the ruling class.
Bong Joon Ho