Who /pushes anti intellectualism in pol/ here?

that's actually a seriously nice shitposting tactic. not even joking.
it doesnt get you banned AND it helps destroy the community.
hope no Holla Forumslack sees this

this, i have a nazi friend that has some terrible opinions but i respect him more than the average apolitic liberal normie, even though i agree more with the second

youtube.com/watch?v=sJlAop6SyLI

Internet interaction is not the same as in real life.

If anything, it's a very good thing that Internet arguments won't change your mind, because the Internet is useful for anyone to have an audience, no matter how awful their views are.

If they wanted to be educated, they already would be, so as far as I'm concerned, antagonize the hell of them. They're as easy to troll as, well, Stormfront, but with much higher yield.

Instead we should be more considerate of Holla Forumsyps that want serious debate on our own turf.

Ironically it's the stormcucks that actually change their minds when they come here, the lolbertarians are pretentious fucks that talk down to everyone like toddlers

I flaseflag with this shit on Holla Forums fairly often. Our own anti-intellectuals in colleges make us a target of ridicule, so it's very important that they also come off as boorish idiots so that no one will take them seriously.
Usually it's as easy as calling people cucks if they question Trump even once and the fire just spreads on its own.

It's a good way of keeping Holla Forums in check. It's also good that we have the hidden IRC to coordinate this.

I actually do this. The movement is dominated by anti-intellectualism anyway. If it weren't they wouldn't think our top priority should be building a wall.
The irony is that they see themselves as stone-cold rationalists in the face of the growing social justice movement, yet their movement is just the right-wing counterpart to the left's social justice. It too is fueled by an obsession with ethnicity. They're jingoists, which is as spooked as it gets.

Do you really think its working though? Are the more intelligent polyps drifting over here? Are they seeing the flaws in their own rhetoric? Or is it reinforcing them further?

Faith comrade.
Faith.

How hideously spooky of you comrade

I'm a rather spooky individual comrade. I'm not an egoist.

Everyone is an egoist, it's a matter of whether you are aware of it or not.

I'm more in line with altruism than egoism. If you're using an "is" statement, then ok that's fine.

How precious.

Pfff, what does the nihilist know?

...

What's wrong with altruism?

I happen to know that if there was absolutely no benefit to you doing an "altruistic" action - and I include the emotional gratification it brings you as a benefit - you simply would not do it.

Either because of an obvious material benefit to you in some indirect fashion, or because of emotional gratification either for "doing a good thing" or because you are following a morality/code of ethics, you are always acting selfishly. The idea that there is such a thing as any action done purely for the sake of the good is post-Kantian liberal Enlightenment nonsense. Kant himself claimed that the only way someone can know that they are truly acting out of the good will and not out of self-interest is if they are miserable, and no one would ever do anything that made them miserable unless there was a higher sense of gratification at believing oneself to be "doing the right thing" - which Kant conveniently ignored.

Any moral imperative qua a moral imperative contains within it some base form of pleasure. Which is why morality and ethics is shit and meta-ethics is superior.

>>>Holla Forums6141358

It doesn't exist.

Gee, it's almost like Holla Forums is nothing more than a cultish pseudo-political community of opinionated idiots on the internet who have no coherent view and are perfectly capable of nevertheless seeming legitmate by being the loudest.

Where does a fascist who is open to rational discussion go? :(

The main difference between Holla Forums and fascism is that Holla Forums isn't a particularly unique place. They're merely the most extreme case of what generally happens to internet communities, especially internet communities that are based around politics and aren't heavily moderated (which in effect also kills all discussion).

Fascism is pretty much the same thing. It is intellectually bankrupt; everything about it that isn't wholly ignorant of all of Western philosophy and political theory is stolen from other politics - mostly the rhetoric and aesthetic. It capitalizes off the fears and insecurities of a group of people who share a trait, reifies that trait into an identity (muh aryan Nation), and simultaneously de-legitimizes everyone who doesn't share that trait while also legitimizing itself by claiming that this trait is important to the fascist ideology and that this trait in-itself matters at all to politics in some way.

There's nothing whatsoever rational about fascism, which is why there's no reason at all to be tolerant of fascism. There's nothing to be learned from it unless you want to know how to most efficiently break human beings before systematically murdering them.

You could say that the whole internet is basically fascist.

Speak for yourself. Sacrifices can be made without thinking for oneself but for others. No glory no pride. If I am to be miserable, then so be it. Those who, in critical situations, commit actions for the sake of their own temporal pleasure are indeed the ugliest of cowards. Also, the idea is ancient. We can only be ourselves, so maybe it is true that we can only act out of our own ego, but we should at least try (pretend) to be able to do otherwise. Emotional conclusions concomitant with actions undertaken shouldn't be premeditated but ignored and seen as "random" associations the leak the desire or intent of our ego. If one can only be miserable, then get over it or at least be happily miserable (contradiction).

Everything you said there is literally debunked in the first two pages of the ego and his own, if not the first page.

what poltiical system do you suggest if I consider the most important thing to be the existence of white people and white countries? Every system except Not Socialism or fascism seems like it will end this.

kys

...

You're obviously just reading into my post what you want to read out of it and then using that as an excuse to post this self-aggrandizing drivel.

My point is that, whether you do it consciously or not, you are always in some way acting selfishly because there is always on some level some reason why acting a certain way makes sense to you. Even if it isn't in your material self-interest, you choosing to do something "for the greater good" implies that there is some good which you value more than your material well-being, and acting in the interest of this higher good in effect reproduces this particular narrative that is a significant part of your Selfhood. It in other words is acting in the interest of your spiritual well-being rather than material, and if you had no sense of gratification from doing "the good" - none whatsoever - then how could you possibly know it was the good?

I suggest you consider some form of Aryan jihadism and go suicide bomb yourself for muh white race you fucking spooked faggot.

Comrades, dont waste your time and efforts with Holla Forums, seriously.

Those people are already deep into ideology and convinced about their righteousness, direct confrontation can only make this worse. We need to target the mild masses, the people with no strong political positions. Go to Holla Forums, /r9k/, /k/, i dont know, even /cuteboys/ if you want. But not Holla Forums.

To convince one Holla Forumsack you need a tremendous effort and you need to find the correct person, but with less effort and more generalized targeting we can get more people to our side, but we have to be clever about.

...

Maybe. We should just feel and pretend otherwise.

You're ignoring the fact that the payoff for recruiting a Holla Forumsyp isn't worth it.

For all the reactionary scum that has existed, the only two thinkers who have came out of them and really been worth anything to the world have been Heidegger and Schmidt. I'm willing to risk gulaging the next Heidegger than waste my time trying to convince some Nazi piece of shit of things that should be obvious to any person who has any small amount of empathy and self-worth.

Just read Nietzsche smh

fuck off, kike.

Holla Forums is already the place I'm supposed to fuck off to. You fuck off to, like, any other board on Holla Forums - since every board on here is fascist anyways.

But comrade, if we get serious about it, we'll think life so hard that we'll be suffocated and unable to walk across a room or lift our hands to wave a friend goodbye. I don't want to live a life like that comrade.

fine. enjoy your containment board. just remember that communism was dreamed up by jews, pushed by jews, organized by jews, etc etc by jews. you're playing into their hand. pce.

Stop fucking calling me comrade and read Nietzsche you dumbass. He already BTFO your bullshit liberalisms over 100 years ago.

K. Bye now.

people post in "how did you become a commie" threads all the time about how they came here as shit eating pollacks only to have their opinions changed

You egoists are such fools. The self is just an illusion. Man's real nature is nothing. You guys are the spooked ones.

...

iep.utm.edu/egoism/

Best way to do it is to point out the fact that he takes money from kikes, fraternizes with them, etc…
Also point out the fact that he hires beaners.

/third.positionist/

Literally read Stirner.
Egoism can include altruism. Altruism can be a selfish act. I can be altruistic because I enjoy it. The problem is when it becomes a fixed idea.

But I'm the creative nothing!

Ayo, shitposting all the way calling everything jew and shit and pushing that whole religiouse rhetoric on them while pointing out that communism is literally satan.

Then that's not true altruism. They're opposites. This doesn't mean that an egoist can't do good things though. I don't think you get it.

The "self" is an illusion. The ego is the creative nothing. Stop listening to Alan Watts and Schopenhauer. The ego is the highest responsibility the ego has.

When you say "the ego is a spook" you're saying nothing, because everyone acts according to ego in any case.

Stop kidding yourself.

No. Self is an illusion. Egoists are too entrapped in themselves.

No, I think it's you who's not understanding altruism.

Altruism is self-sacrifice, but it's not ego-sacrifice. There's a distinction.
So long as it's not a fixed idea, it's egoism.

Read Stirner pls.

Do you know where Schopenhauer got it from? The Buddha. Go read the Buddha please.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
Also he actually didn't. Most of it came from Hinduism. That's where his word 'Maya' comes from to describe the self as illusion.

Also Buddhism actually never says don't be egoistic. That's a false modern conception.

Schopenhauer was known for reading Buddhist texts. That's where it came from. Yes, Buddhism was highly influenced from Hinduism but it isn't Hinduism.

That is one of the most ignorant claims I've ever heard. Theravada Buddhist scholars don't write anything? That's ridiculous. Go read or something.

Sanskrit*

About ego being bad, no.

Being incredulous is not an argument btw. Go quote the text where it says ego is bad.

This isn't to get into the fact that you haven't even shown that Buddhism is correct, that the self is an illusion (though on that one you are correct) or that that even matters given that all acts come from ego, that illusion, in the first place. In fact by saying so you're just defending egoism.

Lastly, you fail to understand 2 parts of language.

1. Ego != self
2. Ego in buddhism != ego in psychology

Looks like its time to copy paste again.

'' Consequently I must again vindicate love for myself, and deliver it out of the power of Man with the great M.

What was originally mine, but accidentally mine, instinctively mine, I was invested with as the property of Man; I became feoffee in loving, I became the retainer of mankind, only a specimen of this species, and acted, loving, not as I, but as man, as a specimen of man, the humanly. The whole condition of civilization is the feudal system, the property being Man’s or mankind’s, not mine. A monstrous feudal State was founded, the individual robbed of everything, everything left to “man.” The individual had to appear at last as a “sinner through and through.”

Am I perchance to have no lively interest in the person of another, are his joy and his weal not to lie at my heart, is the enjoyment that I furnish him not to be more to me than other enjoyments of my own? On the contrary, I can with joy sacrifice to him numberless enjoyments, I can deny myself numberless things for the enhancement of his pleasure, and I can hazard for him what without him was the dearest to me, my life, my welfare, my freedom. Why, it constitutes my pleasure and my happiness to refresh myself with his happiness and his pleasure. But myself, my own self, I do not sacrifice to him, but remain an egoist and — enjoy him. If I sacrifice to him everything that but for my love to him I should keep, that is very simple, and even more usual in life than it seems to be; but it proves nothing further than that this one passion is more powerful in me than all the rest. Christianity too teaches us to sacrifice all other passions to this. But, if to one passion I sacrifice others, I do not on that account go so far as to sacrifice myself, nor sacrifice anything of that whereby I truly am myself; I do not sacrifice my peculiar value, my ownness. Where this bad case occurs, love cuts no better figure than any other passion that I obey blindly. The ambitious man, who is carried away by ambition and remains deaf to every warning that a calm moment begets in him, has let this passion grow up into a despot against whom he abandons all power of dissolution: he has given up himself, because he cannot dissolve himself, and consequently cannot absolve himself from the passion: he is possessed.

I love men too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them. Per contra, the high-souled, virtuous Philistine prince Rudolph in The Mysteries of Paris, because the wicked provoke his “indignation,” plans their torture. That fellow-feeling proves only that the feeling of those who feel is mine too, my property; in opposition to which the pitiless dealing of the “righteous” man (e.g. against notary Ferrand) is like the unfeelingness of that robber [Procrustes] who cut off or stretched his prisoners’ legs to the measure of his bedstead: Rudolph’s bedstead, which he cuts men to fit, is the concept of the “good.” The for right, virtue, etc., makes people hard-hearted and intolerant. Rudolph does not feel like the notary, but the reverse; he feels that “it serves the rascal right”; that is no fellow-feeling.

You love man, therefore you torture the individual man, the egoist; your philanthropy (love of men) is the tormenting of men.

If I see the loved one suffer, I suffer with him, and I know no rest till I have tried everything to comfort and cheer him; if I see him glad, I too become glad over his joy. From this it does not follow that suffering or joy is caused in me by the same thing that brings out this effect in him, as is sufficiently proved by every bodily pain which I do not feel as he does; his tooth pains him, but his pain pains me. ''

Ohhhh sorry. I misread! I thought you said "Buddhism doesn't say anything. don't be egoistic." Sorry my mistake.

no worries comr8

Egoists fuck off. Your theories account for all behavior and thus say nothing and are also unfalsifiable.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

You guys are funny.
Either you want leftism because of its egalitarianism, or you subscribe to "egoism" and all the related Stirner self-serving rubbish that would better sound like something a billionaire CEO would believe.

That really doesn't follow.
I know what you're trying to say here. "Egoism is unfalsifiable because it claims to be the root cause of all things as tautology".
That may be true, but that's the point of the tautology. It's a simple reminder, that all DESIRES come from that. DESIRES.
There's no objectivity to them, and in fact there's no possibility of objectivity to them.
You have no good reason to say we should do anything. All actions come from the internal and hence are egoistic.

Why can't I want both?

Because if you want to satisfy everything your ego wants, it's a lot easier under capitalism.

Egoism knows no political ideology.

Why is he a leftist? Because his ego desires to be!

Why is he a fascist? Because his ego desires it!

People only bring it up here so much to deal with people coming on to the board and appealing to objective morality.

It's really not.

Capitalism, in its formation of heirarchy between Lord and Servant forces both parties to only care about material conditions. Hence they reject all other aspects of their ego and can't develop them.

This is Stirner 101

spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001547/secG6.html

Not when he squeels to the police for me taking possession of my property (The goods in his warehouse or house).

My god, this is why voluntary death sqauds may exist. Awnse me this, what does Stirner mean with Ragamuffin and why are the Ragamuffin the biggest problem to capitalism when we are speaking about Egoism.

wat

So, if it is in my self interest, that noone goes with out having his basic need sutisfied, for otherwise he will be force to limit my basic needs, …. eeer… then what?

Capitalism doesn't sutisfy ANYONE'S needs/self interests.

And now OP's answer.

As you can see, there is no point in trying to make them see beyond Ideology.

Does that mean we shouldn't even try? NO!
But once you see he doesn't. .. well … there are more important things in life than trying to make everyone see beyond.

The billionaire CEO knows how to defend their property by using the police. Is this not acting in self-interest?

Yeah, you're gonna have a hard time satisfying your ego when you can't satisfy your basic necessities first.

He by submission to the state provides the evidence to the state that he is worthy to be defended. He is a loyal citizen and is allowed to use his property by allowance of the state wich is the monopoly of force/might/violence. The Ego utilizes ideas but doesnt submit, does not ever let an idea become higher then himself. If the idea demands the sacrafice of yourself then you arnt the owner of the self anymore but the self is now the tool of the idea you submit to. If the spook/idea isnt in your full authority (It is able to controle you by own might) it isnt fit to utilize as it will resist you.

Who says i cant steal and rob all the basics i desire? The Police or the State or the Moral man?

Free competition means nothing else than that every one can present himself, assert himself, fight, against another. Of course the feudal party set itself against this, as its existence depended on an absence of competition. The contests in the time of the Restoration in France had no other substance than this — that the bourgeoisie was struggling for free competition, and the feudalists were seeking to bring back the guild system.

Now, free competition has won, and against the guild system it had to win. (See below for the further discussion.)

If the Revolution ended in a reaction, this only showed what the Revolution really was. For every effort arrives at reaction when it comes to discreet reflection, and storms forward in the original action only so long as it is an intoxication, an “indiscretion.” “Discretion” will always be the cue of the reaction, because discretion sets limits, and liberates what was really wanted, i. e., the principle, from the initial “unbridledness” and “unrestrainedness.” Wild young fellows, bumptious students, who set aside all considerations, are really Philistines, since with them, as with the latter, considerations form the substance of their conduct; only that as swaggerers they are mutinous against considerations and in negative relations to them, but as Philistines, later, they give themselves up to considerations and have positive relations to them. In both cases all their doing and thinking turns upon “considerations,” but the Philistine is reactionary in relation to the student; he is the wild fellow come to discreet reflection, as the latter is the unreflecting Philistine. Daily experience confirms the truth of this transformation, and shows how the swaggerers turn to Philistines in turning gray.

The members of the estates are to remain within the limits that are traced for them by the charter, by the king’s will, etc. If they will not or can not do that, then they are to “step out.” What dutiful man could act otherwise, could put himself, his conviction, and his will as the first thing? Who could be so immoral as to want to assert himself, even if the body corporate and everything should go to ruin over it? People keep carefully within the limits of their authorization; of course one must remain within the limits of his power anyhow, because no one can do more than he can. “My power, or, if it be so, powerlessness, be my sole limit, but authorizations only restraining — precepts? Should I profess this all-subversive view? No, I am a — law-abiding citizen!”

The commonalty professes a morality which is most closely connected with its essence. The first demand of this morality is to the effect that one should carry on a solid business, an honourable trade, lead a moral life. Immoral, to it, is the sharper, the, demirep, the thief, robber, and murderer, the gamester, the penniless man without a situation, the frivolous man. The doughty commoner designates the feeling against these “immoral” people as his “deepest indignation.”

All these lack settlement, the solid quality of business, a solid, seemly life, a fixed income, etc.; in short, they belong, because their existence does not rest on a secure basis to the dangerous “individuals or isolated persons,” to the dangerous proletariat; they are “individual bawlers” who offer no “guarantee” and have “nothing to lose,” and so nothing to risk. The forming of family ties, e.g., binds a man: he who is bound furnishes security, can be taken hold of; not so the street-walker. The gamester stakes everything on the game, ruins himself and others — no guarantee. All who appear to the commoner suspicious, hostile, and dangerous might be comprised under the name “vagabonds”; every vagabondish way of living displeases him. For there are intellectual vagabonds too, to whom the hereditary dwelling-place of their fathers seems too cramped and oppressive for them to be willing to satisfy themselves with the limited space any more: instead of keeping within the limits of a temperate style of thinking, and taking as inviolable truth what furnishes comfort and tranquillity to thousands, they overlap all bounds of the traditional and run wild with their impudent criticism and untamed mania for doubt, these extravagating vagabonds. They form the class of the unstable, restless, changeable, i.e. of the prolétariat, and, if they give voice to their unsettled nature, are called “unruly fellows.”

Such a broad sense has the so-called proletariat, or pauperism. How much one would err if one believed the commonalty to be desirous of doing away with poverty (pauperism) to the best of its ability! On the contrary, the good citizen helps himself with the incomparably comforting conviction that “the fact is that the good things of fortune are unequally divided and will always remain so — according to God’s wise decree.” The poverty which surrounds him in every alley does not disturb the true commoner further than that at most he clears his account with it by throwing an alms, or finds work and food for an “honest and serviceable” fellow. But so much the more does he feel his quiet enjoyment clouded by innovating and discontented poverty, by those poor who no longer behave quietly and endure, but begin to run wild and become restless. Lock up the vagabond, thrust the breeder of unrest into the darkest dungeon! He wants to “arouse dissatisfaction and incite people against existing institutions” in the State — stone him, stone him!

Man the amount of fucking times i have to copy paste this piece here to btfo capitalists is silly. Egoism is more in line with the lumpenproletariat than the bourgeoisie.

Why would an alt-rightist care if Obama got turned to thin red paste?

idpol here

Here is the thing. Intellectualism isn't going to stop a meth nazi from San Bernadino from crushing your skull in with a pip wrench. All anti-intellectualism does is drive them away from any sort of rational response and into blind reactionary violence. That may seem all well and good as it weeds out Holla Forumsyps from the gene pool when they get arrested. The problem is that it is happening way to fast and way too often for the system to catch up with. Soon enough they will try their day of the rope meme, and even though the rest of the world will smack them down like the faggots they are, until that happens they will go out of their way to
while they have a chance. Being armed and prepared is all well and good, but if they have the numbers they can cause quite a bit of havoc before they are shut down.