What's on the right character's head, Holla Forums?

...

I don't want power. In fact I want to be as far away from power as possible because I know I'm a great leader in real life. Those with the most power cause the most damage seeking to right wrongs.

Smug intellectualism is bad, which is what you're reinforcing right now to spectators.

Intellectualism needs to go hand-in-hand with practical experience/application, or it's as useless and meaningless as a Geographical Art doctorate.

Dunno, aren't y'all the ones worried about the capitalists still in power?

The liberal left I realize they don't represent most lefties, but follow along began to increasingly lose the support of factory/industrial workers as their intellectuals moved further away from the practical Defend and protect the proletariat and more towards the theoretical "you dumb rubes, don't you know you're hindering yourselves!?"

Smug intellectualism with armchair compassion leads to people regarding you as a faggot instead of as a world-changer.

Case and point, you will enact more change by holding a commie soup kitchen handing out propaganda than you will arguing over spooks.

What you describe is class conciliation, and there is more to it(mostly interest from said classes, and leaders trying to move away from the whole soviet brand of"real socialism") than just intelectualism.

Atlas Shrugged and Capitalism and Freedom

An equally large library of interracial pornography.

they dont want power, unless you happen to be on their property in which case your as good as slave.

Anyone happen to have that "ancap Halloween" post?

...

So your basically accepting and even praising that the right wing (and especially ancaps as it seems) are anti-intellectuals?

This explains so fucking much, why look at the actual causes of things when you can just believe in unscientific fee fees and justify it with "cause i think so!"

#triggered

Fuck off back to Holla Forums, bro, you meme-suckler.

I addressed that further down because I've watched intellectuals of the right-wing variety fall and many more friends of the left-wing variety fall into the trap of sophistry/smugness.

Intellectualism is fine when you have the luxury to afford it and put it into practical application. Neither you under your hatred of Capitalism, nor I under my hatred of the state and its regulations, have that luxury in the current socio-economic climate that is America and Western Europe.

Have you heard of the "rational ignorance" theory? While it's definitely a right-wing phenomenon relying on economics to explain political science, it's worth looking at.

Here's a short excerpt, though I personally think Ilya Somin over at CATO does a better job explaining it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance

tl;dr- "Rational ignorance is refraining from acquiring knowledge when the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide."

My wording was improper and I should have used the more accurate term "smug intellectualism/sophistry," but I stand by what I said about smugness getting in the way of helping those "uneducated rubes" you hate so much.

I prefer the term compassion myself.

tl;dr that you should get from this post-

Is that what you say when people call you out for being utterly retarded, you call them smug and fell like this somehow justifies your own stupid beliefs? that's fucking retarded m8

Im an unskilled worker who likes to read. Reading things doesn't make you an intellectual, it shows you want to better understand the world around you, and some people know alot more about certain things and those people have written books. Read a fucking book.

How do you know something is not worth knowing if you dont bother to understand what it is you are trying to refrain from learning?

I dont even know why im arguing with you, you clearly have no idea what your talking about and have set yourself firmly up to lead a life of ignorance for ignorance sake because you dont want to understand the world around you because you believe its not worth understanding, even when you dont know what knowledge is actually available. i might even feel bad for you if this wasn't a conscious choice. Have fun being an ignorant wage cuck and being proud about, pray for death from your worthless existence.

...

Holla Forums confirmed for neuroatypical.

Sheeeit, meant to reply to

Yes, and I'm more likely to believe you're triggered by my flag more than you actually care about what I'm saying. Therefore by rational ignorance theory, I can deduce that, in your mind at least, it's better to attack me as an anti-intellectual rather than hear what I'm saying. How about you take a breather for a minute and reread what I said when your head is cooled? Just because I'm a porkie doesn't mean I lack knowledge and experience to contribute to a discussion.

I'm an Electrical Technician who also likes to read in his spare time.

I read lots of books because they're fun to read. I've been reading a number of fiction novels lately because of this, especially LNs. I also have a shelf of books from various political perspectives both right and left that I choose to read for fun when the situation suits me. Sometimes I like to sit down and read passages from the Bible.

How do you know something is worth knowing? I'm assuming both you and I assume that reading and responding to Holla Forums posts in a Nazi thread is probably not worth our time and energy, but how do you know it's not worth our time to do so?

Stay smug, bro. You pretty much just refuted yourself.

Well, I wanted to use this source: cato-unbound.org/2013/10/22/ilya-somin/why-most-political-ignorance-rational-why-it-matters-reply-jeffrey-friedman

But since it came from CATO, I figured you'd be more disgusted than a simple Wiki link that goes over the very basics of the theory, so you didn't have to waste as much time, friend.

A BBC.

It's just a bunch of big black dicks

Pure ideology.

youtu.be/MtPghWHAQfs

The right thinks education is bad because it decreases their voting base

...

Y not, whats wrong with it?

Are you really this stupid? I know you are an orthodox Christian anarcho-capitalist, but still.

weeb

Ah, yes, you've proven my point by your own logic.

Back to Holla Forums with you, anti-christ.

Trump pls.

Reducing yourself to surface level observation can create verry simplistic conclusions (If you lack a theoretical background on the dynamics of logic, as in how to apply logic) about the appearance without understanding the intend of a something you observe. You can make silly conclusions like A does B because A is Evil, this can further make you bound to an idealogy that propagates verry simplistic conclusions on the intend of the other and reality. This is when you become Bound to a Spook/idealogy/an essence.

What do you even mean with practical compassion? What even is practical?

It isnt intellectualism that damages someone's perspectives on reality but the idealogy with all its pre conclusions that are made for you.

'' When one looks to the bottom of anything, i.e. searches out its essence, one often discovers something quite other than what it seems to be; honeyed speech and a lying heart, pompous words and beggarly thoughts, etc. By bringing the essence into prominence one degrades the hitherto misapprehended appearance to a bare semblance, a deception. The essence of the world, so attractive and splendid, is for him who looks to the bottom of it — emptiness; emptiness is = world’s essence (world’s doings). Now, he who is religious does not occupy himself with the deceitful semblance, with the empty appearances, but looks upon the essence, and in the essence has — the truth.

The essences which are deduced from some appearances are the evil essences, and conversely from others the good. The essence of human feeling, e.g., is love; the essence of human will is the good; that of one’s thinking, the true, etc.

What at first passed for existence, e.g. the world and its like, appears now as bare semblance, and the truly existent is much rather the essence, whose realm is filled with gods, spirits, demons, with good or bad essences. Only this inverted world, the world of essences, truly exists now. The human heart may be loveless, but its essence exists, God, “who is love”; human thought may wander in error, but its essence, truth, exists; “God is truth,” and the like.

To know and acknowledge essences alone and nothing but essences, that is religion; its realm is a realm of essences, spooks, and ghosts.''

''Mind is the name of the first self-discovery, the first self-discovery, the first undeification of the divine; i. e., of the uncanny, the spooks, the “powers above.” Our fresh feeling of youth, this feeling of self, now defers to nothing; the world is discredited, for we are above it, we are mind.
Now for the first time we see that hitherto we have not looked at the world intelligently at all, but only stared at it.
We exercise the beginnings of our strength on natural powers. We defer to parents as a natural power; later we say: Father and mother are to be forsaken, all natural power to be counted as riven. They are vanquished. For the rational, i.e. the “intellectual” man, there is no family as a natural power; a renunciation of parents, brothers, etc., makes its appearance. If these are “born again” as intellectual, rational powers, they are no longer at all what they were before.
And not only parents, but men in general, are conquered by the young man; they are no hindrance to him, and are no longer regarded; for now he says: One must obey God rather than men.

From this high standpoint everything “earthly” recedes into contemptible remoteness; for the standpoint is — the heavenly.
The attitude is now altogether reversed; the youth takes up an intellectual position, while the boy, who did not yet feel himself as mind, grew up on mindless learning. The former does not try to get hold of things (e.g. to get into his head the data of history), but of the thoughts that lie hidden in things, and so, e.g., of the spirit of history. On the other hand, the boy understands connections no doubt, but not ideas, the spirit; therefore he strings together whatever can be learned, without proceeding a priori and theoretically, i.e. without looking for ideas.''

Mind is the name of the first self-discovery, the first self-discovery, the first undeification of the divine; i. e., of the uncanny, the spooks, the “powers above.” Our fresh feeling of youth, this feeling of self, now defers to nothing; the world is discredited, for we are above it, we are mind.
Now for the first time we see that hitherto we have not looked at the world intelligently at all, but only stared at it.
We exercise the beginnings of our strength on natural powers. We defer to parents as a natural power; later we say: Father and mother are to be forsaken, all natural power to be counted as riven. They are vanquished. For the rational, i.e. the “intellectual” man, there is no family as a natural power; a renunciation of parents, brothers, etc., makes its appearance. If these are “born again” as intellectual, rational powers, they are no longer at all what they were before.
And not only parents, but men in general, are conquered by the young man; they are no hindrance to him, and are no longer regarded; for now he says: One must obey God rather than men.

From this high standpoint everything “earthly” recedes into contemptible remoteness; for the standpoint is — the heavenly.
The attitude is now altogether reversed; the youth takes up an intellectual position, while the boy, who did not yet feel himself as mind, grew up on mindless learning. The former does not try to get hold of things (e.g. to get into his head the data of history), but of the thoughts that lie hidden in things, and so, e.g., of the spirit of history. On the other hand, the boy understands connections no doubt, but not ideas, the spirit; therefore he strings together whatever can be learned, without proceeding a priori and theoretically, i.e. without looking for ideas.

As in childhood one had to overcome the resistance of the laws of the world, so now in everything that he proposes he is met by an objection of the mind, of reason, of his own conscience. “That is unreasonable, unchristian, unpatriotic,” etc., cries conscience to us, and — frightens us away from it. Not the might of the avenging Eumenides, not Poseidon’s wrath, not God, far as he sees the hidden, not the father’s rod of punishment, do we fear, but — conscience.
We “run after our thoughts” now, and follow their commands just as before we followed parental, human ones. Our course of action is determined by our thoughts (ideas, conceptions, faith) as it is in childhood by the commands of our parents.
For all that, we were already thinking when we were children, only our thoughts were not fleshless, abstract, absolute, i. e., NOTHING BUT THOUGHTS, a heaven in themselves, a pure world of thought, logical thoughts.

On the contrary, they had been only thoughts that we had about a thing; we thought of the thing so or so. Thus we may have thought “God made the world that we see there,” but we did not think of (“search”) the “depths of the Godhead itself”; we may have thought “that is the truth about the matter,” but we do not think of Truth itself, nor unite into one sentence “God is truth.” The “depths of the Godhead, who is truth,” we did not touch. Over such purely logical, i.e. theological questions, “What is truth?” Pilate does not stop, though he does not therefore hesitate to ascertain in an individual case “what truth there is in the thing,” i.e. whether the thing is true.

To bring to light the pure thought, or to be of its party, is the delight of youth; and all the shapes of light in the world of thought, like truth, freedom, humanity, Man, etc., illumine and inspire the youthful soul.

But, when the spirit is recognized as the essential thing, it still makes a difference whether the spirit is poor or rich, and therefore one seeks to become rich in spirit; the spirit wants to spread out so as to found its empire — an empire that is not of this world, the world just conquered. Thus, then, it longs to become all in all to itself; i.e., although I am spirit, I am not yet perfected spirit, and must first seek the complete spirit.
But with that I, who had just now found myself as spirit, lose myself again at once, bowing before the complete spirit as one not my own but supernal, and feeling my emptiness.
Spirit is the essential point for everything, to be sure; but then is every spirit the “right” spirit? The right and true spirit is the ideal of spirit, the “Holy Spirit.” It is not my or your spirit, but just — an ideal, supernal one, it is “God.” “God is spirit.” And this supernal “Father in heaven gives it to those that pray to him.”

fixed this shit

I agree this happens both on Holla Forums and Holla Forums
Its like when you want to have a discussion with a polack and they automaticly dismiss you for having a jewish website as source.
youtu.be/Pk8ibrfXvpQ

hnnnnnnnggggggggggg

There's no need to fix anything. The man on the right already looks like muslim. And the man on the left is ayy lmao.

I'll be responding over at >>>/liberty/21217 since having an AnCap flag is apparently ban-worthy and I wasn't finished with my conversation. That was very rude of you to do that without listing the post as having gotten me banned, volunteers.

Actually, historically, Republicans have spent more on science and education than Democrats. The difference is that the right asks the question "is this economically viable?" Rather than if it should be done or not. The USA could have a Korean-level education system, but if you see the return vs. Price point in Korea versus, say, Norway, it becomes clear that the Korean system is extremely inefficient waste of money even though the education is better.

I am disgruntled by this. If you'd actually read what I posted in this thread up until now, you'd know that I think the moderation and nazi torture chamber on Holla Forums is disgusting.

Apparently torture chamber gets auto corrected to torture chamber? Lol.

You got banned for trolling, ancap.

Consider it a complement, the board volunteers didn't think you're as retarded as you actually are.

Okay.

You're the ones putting words in my mouth.

Stacks upon stacks of IR cuck porn

Yeah, back to Holla Forums you go.

Historically, the KKK used to identify as democrats and the republican party was the abolitionist party. There's been a cultural shift in both of the parties since Nixon's southern strategy. Modern republicans generally have an interest in reducing education funding.

There are some really shitty vols floating around, yes

...

I've seen many ancaps suddenly support the whole alt-right thing and suddenly go on supporting Trump. It seems as though their ancap shit is just reaction and they're not really committed to it. They tend to show authoritarian tendencies. Stefan Molyneux and Love Life and Anarchy for example.

I've actually read it.

...

Point taken. Those are shit. Sadly, anarchocapitalism does not cure autism.

I have. It's basically Might is Right if Redbeard wasn't on a pound of cocaine while writing and if he had had a raging anti-boner with regards to censorship.

What does Stirner say about criticism and the relations between the commonality and the ragamuffins?

I've had arguments with Holla Forumstards where I've mentioned going to university in the 90s being different from today, and all I got in reply was

and a smug face about a hundred times.

They obviously have contempt for any form of education.

He said that your parents hate you and your mother is a whore, so fuck off instead of asking me stupid trivia questions.

But to answer your questions anyway:
I don't think he mentioned a direct link between these two. With ragamuffins, he meant people with no belongings, in his eyes the ideal of the socialists. The commonalty are, in a way, contrasted with the ragamuffins, in that they do have belongings. However, they still abhor their own individuality in their worship of the state. Political liberalism and the state are linked. Political liberalists want people to be "citizens". Likewise, the commonalty are content being "citizens", instead of trying to be individuals.

That it's dumb and he doesn't like it. Really, no one gives a shit about what Stirner said about a movement that no one gives a shit about anymore. Anyway, humane liberalism - what Stirner meant with criticism - wants the individual to be annihilated and replaced with "man", a being without the traits belonging to the individual.

Now, as I said, these questions are fucking stupid. You can understand Stirner without having a definition of criticism at hand. Yes, even after you've read his book, which I did. I just didn't study the shit out of it, because why should I? There's hundreds of philosophers out there and I sure as fuck won't try to become a scholar on all of them.

Because you're such a smartass, what did Stirner say on the potential of the individual?

The ancap does have one point: there is a point where intellectualism becomes counterproductive. That point is precisely where the need for action begins. This thread illustrates that perfectly. Here we have anarcholinguists arguing theory with an ancap, thus derailing a thread that should be about making dank memes like .

Fail.

I strive for accuracy.

He mentioned the relation between them considering being both "citizens" under the state. That the commonality gladly accepts its title of citizen'' for the state ensuring their protection if they work along the idea of the state. While the ragamuffins (Those without property) do not have any need for the state as they have no property that has been granted by the state. The state gives them nothing and so they dont need the state.

Criticism is meant as an Extension of idealogy towards another idealogy, as applying the princibles of your own idea towards the other by attempt to call it out for being egoist/unhuman or not true to its principles.

They are but you still responded, they were just there for curiousity if you actually read Saint Stirner blessed be his name.

That the individual should determine his own values (Subjectivity) and not let any fixed idea assign his values (Take possesion of him). further to take possesion of all property and determine what to utilize for the sake of the self.

Its mental masturbation what we are doing here, this is a chan on ther internet and not the headquarters of the vangaurd. The practical are in the streets, want the practical then the last place you want to go is the internet.

Then make some damn memes.

...

I prever shitposting and derailing.

You guys are too generous.

Some of our volunteers are retarded.

No we want you on the bandwagon. You are the reason the western world is suffering and you know it. You are still welcome to join. Or be smote.

...

Sure thing, fucko.

Now I understand right-think.

READ A BOOK YOU FUCKING NIGGER

The labels should switch sides.

WwowOWOWWAAHH!!!!! HEEREEEALLY FUCKKING DID IT THIS TIME FOLKS"!!!!! ERRRYBODY GET DIRTY N DOWN WITH THIS SLY MUTTHHAAFUKKA

Let's be honest here.

...

Lol this

While we are being honest, we should probably note that the nihilists are closer to the ancaps in ideological terms than they are to leftists.

Nah, capitalists aren't nihilists, they want to preserve capital so they can have muh family values.

I think you take yourself and Holla Forums a bit too seriously lad

They do love their imaginary constructs, though.

Says the guy shooping images to the guy posting one-sentence replies.

Indeed

Kek

it's really the entire internet in a nutshell

the western media as a whole

...

why are ancaps so fucking cringeworthy

they literally sound like farm animals

Mein Kampf

for real

The lefty had his head bound as a child, like they used to do in south america, which explains his abnormally elongated head and the righty looks like a racist stereotype of a jew.

Fuck off black nazi.

Noice.

Saved.

Propably any of these

I don't even….

What the hell….

Even the speaker with the mic looks down in embarrassment as he says "cuck".

the guy on the right is a usual cuckservative guest on the thom hartmann's big picture btw

AAAAAAAAAH

You seem kind of an annoying cunt but this is a true statement.

the market doesn't determine what's useful, you fucking idiot. Some of the utter shit the market produces is totally useless. infinitely more than any "useless" doctorate.

...

Simplified ideas and fear.

DEGENERANANCY

Most "intellectuals" probably don't lean left, they just have the sense and demographic underpinning to have universal morality and not be so enamored by the religious and hypernationalist right.

Your average socially successful IQ 145+ person is probably of the same political type as Michael Bloomberg or Eric Schmidt. A neoliberal with some progressive-lite social views and a subtle elitist-status quo-authoritarian bent. Their politics do not extend beyond "common sense" and base association. If they are very bright and additionally have a high openness, skeptical, or otherwise irreverent personality they might feel a pull towards the far left among many possible conceptual outlets. They could also end up as a REEE DONT TRED ON ME or one of those "principled" ""conservatives""

Leftism is academia is mostly an institutional problem. Sociology and history are distinctly left-leaning, the former makes fundamental assumptions to establish the field that are not conducive to the right and the latter is pluralistic by the nature of the field. Universities welcome leftism and stifle elements of the right because elitism, hierarchy, and preferentialism are all attitudes that run contra to how profit-driven entities manifest culturally. I wouldn't call it "leftist" per se, but idpol and political correctness. It's a social strategy of consolidation, widest net pull, collective marginal preference, forced cohesion etc etc.

Kek, ignore my post, this sums it up pretty neatly

In the U.S. yeap

We, the left, are wayyyyy to obsessed with credentials, college, and intellectualism.

Way. too. much.
When the right makes fun of us, one thing they always get right: our smugness.

And we wonder why so many white working class people are Republicans.

the moderate right has this problem too tbh

Fix'd. The only places on campus where you are likely to find actual leftists are in the philosophy department and, if you are lucky, in the history department. The social sciences are dominated by liberals, and absolutely everywhere else is overrun by neoliberals.