Why aren't you a Not Socialist?

I didn't create those infographics but they seem like a favorable depiction to me.

It was literally "our spooks are the best" and a distorted Burgerland representation of politics that doesn't even place the right-libertarians on the right-wing.

I dream of potatoes

It seems like a fairly accurate, albeit simplified representation of US politics to me. Yes Right-Libertarians should technically be incorporated into the Right-Wing but the whole idea of the image is to differentiate Conservatives from Libertarians, or the "Cultural/ Social Right" from the "Economic Right". Many Conservatives and Right-Libertarians wouldn't want to be synthesised into a single category anyway.

Now that's what I call sage in all fields.

Woah nice ad hominem ((((((goldstein))))))

Your post lacks a close-up of a smug, Trump cap-wearing anime girl's face.

I hate jews and believe in eugenics but I also like degenerate art.
rate

Baron Evola looks down upon you, OP.

Kill yourself.

Because I'm a socialist.

Bc itz not socialism?

Strasserite get out. Learn to argue coherently and in practical concepts, these infographics are empty propaganda for the normies. Night of the long knives for you faggot.

...

The one about art is especially stupid. So, we should discourage creativity and experimentation to make bland and unoriginal art just because it is pretty?

This is true.

Remember back when Holla Forums were so proud of "converting" that chatbot on Twitter (Tay, I think was its name)? They missed the most obvious truth that event revealed, and also the obvious slam, that there is no difference between a Holla Forumsack and a chatbot mindlessly vomiting out some shitty neo-nazi memes. They are what philosophers habe been wondering about for years, the p-zombies, completely unreflective and idiotic, just parroting whatever random crap they encounter in the net.

rated

Why should we allow artists to produce ugly, decedent grotesque pieces of art for no other reason than to uphold some abstract "freedom of creativity" or "freedom of expression". Look at Modern Art and look at some of the filthy abominations promoted by the international art community. Why should we permit this in our society instead of upholding the ideal of excellence in all areas including aesthetics.

I agree with Evola's critique of Not Socialism and I believe the movement should have been reformed in a more Traditionalist direction. Still, the ideological base of Not Socialism is a good starting point against the Modern world.

Because freedom means some people will invariably make poor use of it. It is a fact of life.

Who are you to just arbitrarily dictate how people live their lives? Do you think reality itself is a video game and that you are the sole protagonist?

That is just your opinion man.

t. Holla Forums poster.

That is pretty much how all of them think. It is rather embarrassing to watch tbh, like someone just cam up to you and started discussing his favorite sexual fetish or something.

Given the rates of alcoholism, drug addiction, obesity, STDs and other social ills in modern western Liberal societies I would argue more people make poor use of their freedom than otherwise.

I'm but a humble Nazi arguing with Commies on a Pakistani smoke signal enthusiast group. Power, however is not arbitrary. If you have sovereign power you have the ability and the right to impose whatever values you wish upon the population. If I possessed such power I would want to impose values of strength over weakness, beauty over ugliness and classical virtue over vice. People should work towards the common good of their race, their ethnicity, their nation and their people in order to create a happy, healthy and vitalist society capable of withstanding the dangers and terrors of the Outside. Individualism and Liberalism leads only to atomisation and social alienation in which no common society exists (the mistakes of Libertarianism). Most people want to feel as though they are a part of something larger than themselves, and this is one of the reasons why Marxism and Communism have historically been so popular because these movements gave the Proletariat the feeling being a part of a world changing movement.

Do you have an argument? I'm looking for an actual discussion here. You can move along if you have nothing to contribute.

...

Why is it that Leftists refuse to engage intellectually and sincerely with their ideological opponents. Every time I present a reasoned argument on this board all I receive is inane memes and immature green text comments. You're an embarrassment for your side. Are you afraid that you may in fact be proven wrong? lol

If they wanna be fat, drunk or chasing the dragon, that is their choice.
If you don't want people to make bad choices, maybe you should make society less shit so people won't try to escape from it psychologically.

And why should we not literally murder you if we don't care for it?

Why is it that every time someone makes a snarky comment, some buttblasted Holla Forumsyp immediately starts whining about how "Leftists" are all disingenuous and intellectually stunted?

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't want to live a society of drug addicts, diseased obese degenerates. I want to live a society of healthy, vital and virtuous men and women.

Precisely why I support Fascism and Not Socialism.

I seem to recall that didn't end very well for the Marxists and Communists under Hitler.

You've just proven my point. Thanks.

While I could understand why would you want to ban drugs or smoking as having detrimental status to a person and therefore society as a whole, the desire of ban art you don't like is honestly stupid, as it does not cause anything negative besides hurt feelings and snarky comments on the internet. Unless, as implied in you believe art has some higher purpose and the ultimate ideal it should strive for and shitty art has some actual negative aspects aside from offending somebody's taste.

Asking rhetorical questions is not an argument bud, and I am not sure where you could have possibly gotten that notion from.

For example, this

is not an argument. It is a bunch of assertions, non sequiturs and memes disguising itself as an argument. In fact, it actually illustrates my point quite well, as only two sentences

even try (miserably) to deal with the other person's question, despite demonstrating a profound ignorance of maybe the past 3 centuries of political thought. It is as if some kid just learned about evolution in freshman bio and tried to browbeat his bullies with it!

The rest of it is you exposing your statist mastrubation fantasy for us to see. We did not ask you to provide what you would do with your power, we asked you to justify why you deserve it in the first place! Just because you promise "good" things does not mean you have a "right" to anything, since we are not consumers shopping for this or that political system.

You have not done that yet, so expecting anything better from us is quite ridiculous. Take ONE of these statements, make a real case for it, and maybe we could get somewhere. Otherwise, you really should have stuck with your infographics.

You might want to get around to doing that one day.

Then why can you not simply seek them out on your own and choose to live in this community by volition?

Brainwashing people with propaganda is not helping them. If anything a Nazi society will eventually crumble into even more duh genewacy than before as the lack of free will eventually erodes into anomie.

Because he got lucky. Why should we not?

Why?

That isn't true though. Art affects culture, social and the "moral fabric" of the nation at large. Consider the effects of having tens of millions of Europeans and Americans force fed a steady diet of Hollywood plebeian garbage which glorifies irrelevant shiting, homosexuality, hedonism and individuals day and night versus art that lifts the spirit, inspires and invigorates the population towards higher ends. I do believe art should reflect a higher, more transcendent and more spiritual end.

I didn't claim otherwise. I'm trying to stimulate an argument and actually promote discussion by asserting some basic points of value. Look at what I'm working with here:

OP asked and they answered. An opinion isn't supposed to be an argument.

Can you proves this conjunction?
And even if you can, and you prove that it's not the changing moral fabric of society that is expressed in art instead? How have you determined the causal link here?

Is Christian art the source of Christian morality, or is Christian morality the source of Christian art?

You asked and you got answers faggot, now go masturbate to your 1TB folder of cuckporn.

It's actually the former, to an extent, because religion is not based on empirical reasoning or cause and effect. A lot of modern Christian culture is basically fanfiction from the Renaissance era that has nothing to do with actual Biblical doctrine.

How is this proven?
What's more likely? That Christians don't portray purgatory as much anymore because they don't believe in it, or that they don't believe in it because they don't portray it?

Because the alternative, a society of heroin addicts, alcoholics and people who cannot stop eating will effect me, my wife and my family negatively. Heroin addicts have a tendency to assault strangers and steal their property in order to finance their drug addiction. They also have a tendency to behave dangerously (operating motor vehicles while under the influence, or using firearms after shooting up for example) and hurt those around them. I don't want to be assaulted, have my property stolen, be run over by a speeding car or shot in the head by a drug addict.

If you're an Individualist/ Egoist you shouldn't want to live in such a society because it's directly opposed to your personal self-interest, to your safety and your security. It will be difficult for you to achieve your various goals (whatever they may be) while the social fabric of your community degenerates and falls to pieces.
If you are a Collectivist and interested in your group (be it your race or your class) you also shouldn't want to live such a society because it hurts your class or race, causing them to fall into decay and ruin.

Because half these memes are based entirely on larping, and im not a huge nerd

Why is it either or?
By "Virtue" do you just mean "things that don't harm me"?
In such a case I agree, but this is not a very common definition of that word.
People in group-marriages are not typically considered "virtuous", but it does nothing to harm me, nor does most people just doing what they want in general.

However, outlawing heroin seems to create an even greater scene of violence around it, as is quite clearly demonstrated with marihuanna today.

Your justifications would in most cases only rationally lead to the oposite of your conclusions.

Why not? The paintings you've shown aren't even that great tbh, they just have a certain style to them. How come racial diversity in an army is ok but diversity in art isn't?

Thanks guys. You really challenged my worldview.

>It's not the changing moral fabric of society that is expressed in art instead?
The relationship between morality and art is undoubtedly symbiotic and reciprocal because I cannot image a virtuous society producing sinful art or sinful art producing a virtuous society, can you?. A degenerate society will produce degenerate art. Therefore changes to either pole will cause changes with its counterpart.

Most religions have at some point in their history drifted from their original core doctrine. This is the nature of religious evolution, especially with a faith as syncretic and multilayered as Christianity.

Then why are you even promoting it?

But not Nazi Germany? Because your memes heavily fetishise Not Socialism as an aesthetic, not really as an idea.

user asked for proof of this bro, not more conjecture.

Very easily. "I cant imagine this" is not an argument, so you should get around to providing one.

Why would art in-of-itself change societies?
Is this not like saying that buboes cause plague and plague causes buboes equally.

Indeed, something like pornography would be considered "sinful" but it still lowers rates of sexually assault, the latter being a "degenerate" thing to do, as far as I understand.

Could it me that most cultural phenomena are simply the symptoms of the changing zietgeist?

Legally banning heroin isn't the only means by which to reduce heroin consumption rates. A metapolitical (or metacultural) change in societies attitudes towards drug use would be more long lasting.

National Socialism and Nazi Germany are difficult to separate. I'm saying the core ideology of Nazi Germany is a good starting point from which to develop a movement against the modern world.

Not sure whats worse, Nazi's user's unironic feels>reals arguments or his obsession with aesthetic over dialectic

It's almost as if he hasn't read Aristotle.

It wouldn't. I'm not saying a Fascist or Not Socialist government should just produce a handful of nice paintings and call it a day.

Source? I'm not doubting you I'm just curious about this point.

Pornography addiction has been proven to cause anxiety, depression, OCD, erectile dysfunction, sexual dysfunction and lowered testosterone. It's degenerate.

Yes. Obviously as a Not Socialist I would use the state to push this "Zietgeist" in a diffrent direction.

I'm not really interested in aesthetics, I'm only going on about it to respond to the points of other posters. My point in posting that image wasn't really to raise aesthetics but to debunk the myths surrounding "degenerate art" in the Third Reich. If other people go on about it you can blame me for following their arguments.

First of all, why?
Second of all, if Evolva critiqued it then why should we care even as a means of promoting Traditionalism?

If they are different then why start your post talking about them? Do you comprehend the world outside the framework of memes?

Pick one

Pick one

Being quite honest, I always found it an infuriatingly insubstantial ideology that would always try to proclaim something substantial, but under even very simple investigation ran through my fingers like smoke.

For a very basic example, the classic Jewish…obsession. At first, it seems like it's presenting a substantive argument: that the Jews are destroying the nation through various means like usury and degeneracy. This is something that gets repeated almost ad nauseum, but somehow I never got a straight answer on what every part of that meant. For starters, who are these jews and why is it the "jew" quality that was the problem? When I'd ask for why one person was a jew, I'd get a reference to someone being "ethnically jewish" because they had someone related to them who was "jewish". But when I asked why being jewish caused the problem, I would get two answers. One, people would reference the jewish religion as a reason for why someone was acting in that way, even if the person wasn't religiously jewish and never was. If I pointed this out, I'd either get called a jewish shill or they'd just say that they never mentioned it. Other times I got an evopsych answer that jewish people were trying to defend themselves after millenia of persecution. Aside from this answer apparently confirming that the jews are in fact right to be acting the way they are according to this theory, it didn't really stand to reason as to why some people would do this and not others if it really was evolutionary. I'd end up getting a dozen contradictory answers pretty much every single time. Not even yet going into separating the bad thing being "jewish" from "the acts these jews do" got me ever-more non-answers.

The more I dug into it, the more it seemed like Nazi was based almost entirely on making a whole bunch of vague, generally-positive sounding statements whose sole purpose was to be a fence-sitter stand-in so that people could fall on one side or the other of a debate. no matter what the situation was. It was just people taking a quick, convenient, "common sense" response. I eventually decided that the entire ideology was little more than a massive state marketing campaign and discarded it wholesale.

Why what?

I've already addressed these points. Re-read my posts.

I meant I'm not really interested in aesthetics as my primary focus. Other people raised the subject so I responded to their arguments. I would much rather discuss other elements of Not Socialism.

One of the major functions of the internet is to provide free safe porn.
And as the internet has spread, and thus access to porn, the rates of sexual assaults have fallen.
Now, there may be other factors at play, but easier available porn has not lead to more sexual assault.

And addiction to cheese can cause gout and obesity?
Is cheese degenerate now.
Working out too much can cause serious damage to my body.
Is working out degenerate?

Why is Not Socialism a useful tool of interpretation?

Good post

This one question which I've asked man rightists on the internet and never gotten a straight answer. Perhaps you can help me Nazi user.

Why is it a good idea to link the political and the social spheres together? if they are already linked, why is it so imperative to change the social and not political? How do the other spheres of a society, such as economics or law, factor into this dynamic and why are they not as important?

Because a lot of communists would argue that the material conditions of a society (the economic and political spheres) have a much greater impact on the function and integrity of society. This makes a lot of sense once you view world history through this lens because even two countries that are different culturally seem to develop in similar ways once they both adopt the same economic system or suffer under the same political circumstances.

Why does the culture take primacy over these other three aspects of a society?

I wouldn't disagree with this point. Jews are in fact entirely justified in the way in which they behave with regards to gentile out-groups, just as groups like the Russians or the Germans are entirely justified in the way in which they behave with regards to Jewish out-groups. Obviously I support the Germans over the Jews, but I'm not really blaming them for their subversive behaviour on a moral or ethical level. If I were a Jew I would probably do the same.

Evolutionary Psychology isn't a force that people are unable to overcome through their higher reasoning faculties. Evolutionary Psychology dictates that most people should have an instinctual aversion towards incest and yet incest will still happen in relatively rare instances. There are many Jews who have overcome their Evolutionary Psychology and who have worked against the interests of their group. Just look at the amount of soldiers who fought for Germany in World War II, as an example.

The thesis of Evolutionary Psychologists like Kevin MacDonald is that if an ethic Jew is raised in a culturally Jewish household the chances are highly likely they will behave in a hyper-ethnocentric in-group orientated way and will work to aid the Jews over and above other groups. This hypothesis is supported by his examination of Franz Boas anthropology, Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis, The Jewish-Marxists in the Frankfurt School and many other Leftist intellectual movements in the 19th and 20ths century. These case studies proved that even when Jews (and by Jews I mean both ethnic and cultural Jews, Jews with a capital J) are dealing with science, anthropology, psychology ect they will distort these objective and empirical areas for their own benefit. They will not engage individualistically and dispassionately in pursuit of the truth, but ethnocentrically in pursuit of their group evolutionary strategy.

The problem is separating the Jews who do conform to this hypothesis with those who do not. Historically this has been almost impossible with the Spanish Inquisition serving as a perfect example. It's basically impossible to say "We only want the good Jews" when Jews historically have worked to conceal their Jewish ethnicity and culture in order to infiltrate gentile power structures. Better to use the Medieval model and separate all of them. It's unfortunate for those Jews who are "good" but this is the reality of group differences. You either keep some and run the risk of having your society subverted or you remove all and run the risk of removing "good Jews".

Jews who do not act in their group evolutionary strategy doesn't disprove the Evolutionary Psychologist thesis anymore than Blacks with above average intelligence disproves the fact that most African-Americans are at least one standard deviation below the mean IQ of the United States. Outliers do not disprove the core thesis.

Overeating anything to the point of obesity and sickness is degenerate because you're behaving like an animal. You have no control over your body and mind, you lack self discipline and permit yourself to be ruled by any whim that presents itself to you.

There's nothing wrong with eating cheese in moderation. There's nothing wrong with lifting weights in moderation. If you're threatening your health and safety due to some addiction and obsession you've lost control of yourself and you need to avoid this behaviour.

Do you think people should eat cheese until they get gout and work out until the cause serious bodily damage? I hope not.

You've missed user's point

Then why is watching porn in moderation a bad thing? What cultural changes would you make that would resolve our obesity and porn "epidemics"? And how do you know they will work.

Then why is abstract art bad in moderation? Why is heroin bad in moderation? Why is casual sex bad in moderation? Why is porn bad in moderation? Why is interracial sex bad in moderation?

Again, if virtue is to be understood as that which does not harm others, then how would any of these count as "degenerate"?

Right. I mean it's the jews that led to his rationalization of anti-semetism being rejected in any journal that required peer review.

You guys use pseudo-science to back your claims up. I'd like you to go through all the criticisms lobbed at MacDonald and the Bell curve and the like, and disprove everyone. You're all armchair scientist who rely on unfalsifiable statements like

That's not enough to convince anyone. You work from a belief and then you try to prove it. That isn't scientific. You're not able to look at studies that prove you wrong with a critical eye because you don't want to believe you're wrong. You're thesis's have all been disproved you just would like not to acknowledge it.

Because politics (or metapolitics if you will) is an extremely effective and efficient means by which to create positive change within the social sphere. Ideally politics and society would be separated. I'm not the sort of person who would want to endorse the idea of "the personal is the political". Unfortunately in the case of the Weimar Republic and our contemporary society things have gotten so bad that only some centralised sovereign authority could possible effect the change necessary to put society back on a health course. It isn't ideal but it is necessary in the 11th hour.

I view these subjects holistically. They are all connected in the larger web of society and changes in the one inevitably lead to changes in the other. Obviously the primary or prior institution is the political, because the sovereign state is by definition the highest power in any given territory and a good place to start in order to affect top-down change.

I agree with this. It's clearly a question of starting points. Do you begin with the political, the economic or the social? Marxists would answer "the Economic!". I would argue the political due to its sovereign nature and due to its ability to dominate all other areas of society. The political, if it is authoritarian, centralised and sovereign can dominate the economic, but the economic can only achieve a relative degree of authority over the political due to its decentralised and distributed nature.

Isn't the means of politics and economics ultimately the end of a happy, healthy and prosperous culture and society? Isn't this ultimately what Marxists and Communists want? To use Class Struggle, Historical Materialism and their various other strategies to create a more equitable and vital society for all involved?

For me the society and the culture, its conditions and its health are my primary concern. Politics and economics are a primary method by which to ensure their health and vitality.

There literally aren't any. Check his website. He lists every review and assessment his books have ever been given by scholars and academics and nobody has actually addressed his books critically. Trust me, I've looked. You're welcome to prove me wrong. I would disprove the criticisms if they actually existed.

Are you going to link me to any of those studies that prove me wrong or are you just going to prattle on like this?

Not even in this conversation but
is completely nonsensical. Both economic and social institutions, or otherwise modes of thought, always belong to the political sphere.

I should have addressed this earlier. No, that isn't how I define Virtue because such a definition is nonsensical. There are plenty of people who aren't harming me who I wouldn't describe as virtuous. Are heroin addicts, obese fatties and sex addicts virtuous? By no means. By virtuous I mean one who has conquered their mind, body and soul, one who has command over themselves, their impulse, their animalistic carnal urges and desires. One who is orientated upwards, not downwards, one who is angelic, not demonic, one who looks towards that which is above, towards transcendence, towards overcoming themselves and moving towards the sun.

I addressed this in my post.

Ok

But…you are, and you just said it was great.

We aren't the Weimar Repbulic, nor is cultural degeneracy the reason why they suffered. They suffered because economic circumstances we're shit.

No you don't, you primarily have a problem with cultural aspects

Then why should we even give a shit about changing cultural and social aspects if they'll just change anyway with improved economic and political functionality?

h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-antisemitism&month=0107&msg=2rbN3zTBC0rNfGaGv1FvAg

splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2007/california-state-university-long-beach-psychology-professor-kevin-macdonald-publishes-anti

I guess the founder of the field Macdonald specializes in saying he uses pseudo-science isn't enough for you though right?

Would you like me to go on, or do the Bell Curve?

Politics isn't just top-down, though, and you keep bringing up axioms and tangents as if they actually did support your conclusions but then you just start talking to yourself out of all irrelevant vanities.

Indeed. That is nonsensical, because any definition of virtue is non-sensical.

And once again to you nothing exists in moderation.
You're either an addict or abstaining.
This is not the dichotomy, and you've only demonstrated that addictions are dangerous to other people than the individual themselves.
Why should I care about other people's vices if it has no effect on me?

Ahhh, so a slave.
One that abides by slave morality and limits himself to a standard arbitrarily defined outside of himself rather than embrace his own nature and become the superman.

has been published either in print or on the Internet. I will certainly
point readers to it if I ever do find out)

Well that's convenient, isn't it. All that post discusses is all of the people who have dismissed McDonald's theories as false. Where are the arguments? Where are the point by point deconstruction of the Culture of Critique. I want an actual counter-argument that addresses his core argument, not a whole lot of posturing and false rhetoric. Link me to a PDF or study explicitly refuting McDonald's trilogy, not this empty bullshit.

McDonald having relationships with those on the Right doesn't disprove his theories any more than academics and scholars who are opposed to biological essentialist IQ-centric views on race having Liberal Progressive friends.

Guilt by association is not an argument.

An SPLC hit piece is not exactly what I'm looking for either.

We aren't arguing about the Bell Curve. You're the one who brought that book up, not me.

They put a link to the criticisms

yoism.reality-movement.org/pdf/KevinMacDonaldAndTheJews.pdf

The article is a broad response to his work, backed up by other academics

Are you dense? The first link isn't "guilt by association." He goes over several things Macdonald misuses in his book and thats only scratching the surface?

I also brought it back because you said something about blacks always having an IQ that deviates with no other explanations and no contradicting.

Not to mention the link to the actual paper in the second one.

contradicting studies*

It should also be noted that MacDonald never responded to Kreigman on his website( or maybe I didn't see it only skimmed through)

Have fun debunking that paper. I'm sure MacDonald will thank you :)

This Kriegman fellow must have the patience of a saint. That PDF will be good triggering material regardless.

I'm reading this now. I'll respond soon.

Here's another 40 page critique of his methods for when you're done/

drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_l1VBFbZyaNlhFR1lZekUxemM/view

Why make up your own arguments when you can just leech off of others?

I was only really using that example to support my earlier point. We could get into HBD if you like, but that's an entirely different issue and I would rather not get sidetracked on yet another tangent.

Have you not been reading this thread? I asked him for scholarly refutations of MacDonald and he provided them. Keep up.

I'm not an evolutionary psychologist. I'm not going to sit here and pretend like I can refute macdonald point by point. But there is an opposing view to his backed by academics. So I would like to consider both before we expel or kill lot's of innocent people in the name of pseudo-science.

It's 2:00 AM maybe another day friendo

...

I should clarify that I'm not interested in committing a genocide against the Jews (not that I believe the Not Socialists had any intention of exterminating the Jews). I would rather adopt a Medieval approach of segregation.

Fair enough. Good night.

I will also say I read Macdonald's response to Kreigman. I found it to not fully address most of the points in Kreigmans criticism of his book. He even went so far as to say he did not have the time to refute it point by point and instead just refuted general crtiisms of his work. Some of which Kreigman addresses.

So I'm not gonna sit here and say that there aren't people who aren't genetically prone to identifying with their own group and being unloyal to others. I will say, that I have noticed it just among every other ethnic group as I have with jews. I've met many "good jews" as you described earlier. Just good all around red blooded Americans.

So again, I will say: Before we segregate an entire group of people from the country I'd like to consider both academic views.

The jew who works at the pharmacy to feed his family is not your enemy my friend. Neither is the black guy at London Drugs. The enemy is the bougeiose.

Maybe my inability to support your ideology comes from personal experience. I judge individuals based on merit.

I'm also vehemently agains autocracy but that's another subject.

I'd recommend you talk to an older jew about what life was like as a child, instead of treating them like a mythic parasite. They are people with feelings and stories. I've talked to a few older gentlemen who described that, yes jews did stick together - but mainly because they were hated by the out group.

I know he isn't, but as I've already stated it's almost impossible to segregate the "good Jews" from the "bad Jews". This problem has plagued countless civilizations throughout history and in almost every instance the only conclusion reached was segregation and separation.

Need I mention the fact that Jews are vastly over represented among the International Bougeiose? Just look at Jewish ownership of Wall Street banking and high finance. Look at Jewish control of the Federal Reserve Bank, the mass media, the education system ect. If you're opposed to the Bougeiose, being Anti-Semitic is going to remove a great deal of your problem.

I'm also opposed to the Bougeiose albeit for different reasons. The global Jewish-Anglo Bougeiose is killing Western Civilization and the White Race through mass third world replacement level immigration, enforced integration, miscegenation propaganda and "political correctness". I want to see them hanging from lamp poles, especially Merkel.

Why does that matter?

They're bourgeois. They could be christian or hinduist, their function would be the same.
It's not like having a european king is better than having a jewish king. They're both fucking kings.

And the same is said about every middleman minority in history.

It is propaganda of the nobles against the bourgeosie who are their competition.
For a long time jews were the only ones who were bourgeois in europe, so of course the manifests itself in anti-semitism, so the peansantry could act as useful idiots for the nobility.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middleman_minority

You are right. The dark enlightment is shit, but im not a Darkenlightment kiddie

Evola is complete dogshit too.

>If you're opposed to the Bougeiose, being Anti-Semitic is going to remove a great deal of your problem.

Removing all Bourgeois Jews would only leave less competition for gentile bourgeois, so it wouldn't change shit in the end.

This is where I always run into issues with fascist. Despite the conspiracy shit at the bottom I have no interest in arguing about, as mentioned the king will always be the king.

The problem of the working class being oppressed by the upper class has persisted throughout history. Thats why there have been revolutions and civil wars. The upper class were Christian aristocrats. The function was the same. The same complaints were made.

Also, I really recommend you read into the history of these nations beyond what Holla Forums tells you. You are aware that in most of these European nations they "tried" to segregate the good from the bad, jews were the ONLY religion aloud to practice besides Christianity in these nations? I'm sorry but I'm not gonna believe that these nations made an attempt to segregate the "good jews" from the "bad jews" while begrudgingly allowing them to stay in the first place.

If you read the articles about Macdonalds work - his blatant disregard for history is mentioned many times. Which I'm afraid you seem to be showcasing to. The jews were, regardless if you want to believe it or not a scapegoat for the elite so that the peasants would feel satisfied.

We don't fall victim to propaganda. We judge individuals based on merit rather than stereotypes If you don't believe this philosophy then fine - but we have a nuanced approach to these things.

So to answer your question - we're not Nazi's because it is antithetical to almost all our beliefs. We find it abhorrent and an ideology based on cherry picking.

Someone is mad. I dont agree with everything he said, especially some of his views on woman and heiarchies, but his traditionalist views are solid. Everyone here takes dialectics too seriously. Need a bit of spinoza in here, :).

I do too, but there's a middle point between treating every member of a group the same based on preconceived stereotypes and treating every person as an individual atom without noticing any patterns associated with their group which they may manifest or accounting for how their sex, gender, race, ethnicity will express itself. I've met plenty of Jews I like and plenty I dislike.

The question is does the Jewish culture and ethnicity produce subversive and destructive individuals in the same way that German culture produces efficient hard workers. Not every German will be an obsessively perfectionist but more often than not he will be. Not every Jew is subversive, but more often than not those in positions of power and influence, who've risen through power structures due to nepotism will be dangerous to the dominant gentile culture.

I don't want to harp on this point too much because it speaks for itself and you'll either agree or you won't. What I would say is that Jews have a homeland now. For the first time in thousands of years they have a sovereign nation, so they ought to move there and live with their own kind, not with ours.

Christians and Hinduists are not the same and neither are white elites and Jewish elites. The Zionism and Neoconservatism which comes from our elites is not a white phenomenon but a Jewish one. Look at the history of Neoconservatism as a movement. Although you will find the occasional gentile scattered through its history the movement was by and large dominated by ethnic and cultural Jews who masked their ethnocentric intentions in Universalist rhetoric (a common feature of the movements discussed by MacDonald). We had to "spread democracy" and bring "universal human rights for all!', not "die for Israel" and "destroy the enemies of the Jewish people". I suspect you're opposed to wars in the Middle East? If you are you ought to consider the ethnic element of Neoconservatism and why it's only "-bergs" or "-steins" that seem to push this militaristic rhetoric among our bourgeois.

I'm not either. Neoreaction is fucking stupid.

Jewish elites are far more innovative and destructive than their gentile counterparts in our elite. It was only once Jews became upwardly mobile in the United States that you began to see things like the '65 immigration act, pushing for Feminism, LGBT, Civil Rights ect. At least the WASP elites of the early 20th century felt some ethnic and cultural connection their subordinates, unlike Jews who have no problem promoting the literal destruction of the white race in the mass media. I could go more into this point if you like, but I'll leave it at this for now.

National Socialism lacks spirituality and is too collective. Most people on Holla Forums are just drones who dick ride Trump. The people on Holla Forums are more interesting.

All things we agree with. Sounds like jews are our allies?

I don't want to harp on this point too much because it speaks for itself and you'll either agree or you won't. What I would say is that Jews have a homeland now. For the first time in thousands of years they have a sovereign nation, so they ought to move there and live with their own kind, not with ours.

Many are here and have lives and histories here as well. What was already said about the middlemen minority rings true.

And I saw many white christians pushing for it to. I saw most of the good white christian neocons pushing for the same things, of course the response is that they are puppets for DA JEWS not people who have common interest. I see these wars as control for resources which also benefit Israel's nationalist intentions - not some one sided thing.

His traditionalist views are based primarily of rose-tinted historical revionism rather than anthropology.

A guy sits upon a throne, he robs me of my wealth, commands by body and tells me how I must conform.
Why do i care what he looks like or what labels he uses? Why do I care how he tells me to confrom and how I can be useful.

All rulers have asked us to ley down our lives so that they may be richer. And we have toiled and bleed for them.

No longer.
The problem is not who is in power, but power itself.

You must have misunderstood my post. I obviously agree with this point. No attempt was made to segregate the good from the bad, instead all Jews were segregated from gentiles. This is exactly what I'm advocating.

I constantly see Marxists, Communists and Leftists such as yourself applying stereotypes and generalisations to the ruling classes.

I do to.

Like what? That it's in the capitalists interests to maximize profit?
Wow, what a generalization.
That it is generally in the interest of kings to expand power?
Wow, so unfair, we see kings limiting their own authority left and right.

Not really. the history was more to inform his metaphysics and philosophy. People forget Evola is a philosopher and esotericst before anything.

Right. This the separation between us. Say it's a white in the upper class? Or a black? If you read into Marx or any other socialist philosopher you'd understand why we view the process of being able to get to the upper class and maintain being there as a sin. How at the end of the day, someone worked for him who was exploited. His ethnicity is of no regard- his class speaks volumes more about him than his race to us.

I know, and as I've said I agree mostly with Evola's critique. With regards to spirituality I believe a more focused and concentrated attempt should have been made to either support Christianity or support the various Pagan Revivalist movements among the NSDAP elite. Unfortunately you had different Nazi ideologues moving in all different directions without any organised aim in any specific direction.

A state focus on Pagan Revivalism over the absurdity of Positive Christianity should have been pursued in addition to a lucid and conscious use of religious symbolism in mass rallies. I will get into this more later. I don't really want to write a whole essay out now. I do think elements of Himmler's Occultism was a good direction.

Yes. Which is meaningless if the premises you're basing your philosophy is directly contradicted by observable reality.

National Socialism is dead. Why try to revive a dead meme? Think you got a shot at the next upheval or cycle?hmmm

I'm not sure if it was this thread or another someone said something about marxist putting economics before politcs. This is incorrect. We believe that economics dictates politics, and that's why we can make assumptions based on a position in power.

It would be reasonable to assume a robber has an interest in robbing?
And a pharmacist in prescribing drugs?
And a governor in governing?
So why not a capitalist in procuring capital?
So there comes the next step: what goes into getting capital? And then what follows is why we are against it.

Also

So it sounds like you've been able to make the distinction between "good" and "bad" jews. Why would it be so hard to do that in a state? Why segregate them all when you admit you've been able to make the distinction? Sounds like a freudian slip.

But its not? In the end most historical events are interperted and changed arround. Are you going to deny that European sociey was not based on aristoracy and fuedalism before the french revolution? Thats not the main points of his work. He can be read as a traditionalist Debord almost.

Fact is without Jews there would be no Neoconservatism. Yes there are white Christians but they are mostly orbiters.

Because the ruling class isn't some faceless homogeneous blob without character or depth. If you think the ruling class of the US, China, Japan, South Africa ect are all identical you're just engaging in lazy thinking.

Have you even read Evola. He frequently cites contemporary anthropologists in Revolt.

That all Elites are bloodsucking vampire parasites who don't give a damn about their people, less still for their employees who would sell their own grandmother to make a dollar, who would gladly flood rivers with pollution for profit and bomb the shit out of starving third world countries to secure oil rights. That sort of thing. The pig meme doesn't help either.

So you're admitting that you generalise and stereotype based on class in the same way I generalise and stereotype based on race?

Example?

Europe is disintegrating. Right-wing nationalist groups are rising across Europe. Something big is happening.

No, of course not.
It's just the thesis of divine leadership and that only some few annointed ones may come up with the certain important roles and rules in society.
Also, that hierarchy always have existed and ancient rome was somehow "virtuous".

Anthropology and history shows that there has been no "involution" of morals.
We have always fucked and fought and gambled. The "glorious and virtuous" past is a utopia.

Yes, well I agree with the Base/Superstructure model to a certain extent, where I disagree with Marxists is where they believe the base literally produces the superstructure, whereas I believe the base merely selects for the superstructure in the sense that the environment selects for certain genes over others through creating evolutionary pressures. There's a reason why nationalism and racialism are selected out and Globalism, Internationalism, Cosmopolitanism, Feminism, Democracy ect are selected in to benefit the Bourgeoisie.

A state doesn't have the time or the resources to send government bureaucrats out to spend multiple years getting to know every single Jew on a deep personal core level in the same way I've known Jews as good friends over multiple years.

If you think that they're not the same, but different factions, then you're an idiot.
The Chinese bourgeoisie seek to maximize their profits and consolidate power.
The same for the Japanese.
And the Americans.
And the Dutch.
And the South Africans.

It is leadership

They are per definition. We feed all, and they eat for us.

Some of them probably do.
Whose are the ones that lose, because ruthlessness makes you more capable of making a profit, thus you're better able to compete. Thus there is a mechanism of natural selection, that ensures that the ruling classes are always are cynical as possible. Their existence would be impossible without it.

Of course not all elites and in the event of some revolution the ones who were committed to helping the working class would be spared. But if you read INTO marxist theory you'd understand why we view the very position of being an "elite" as involving exploitation of some sort of which we resent. Again as I said: we are judging based on their occupation. What the occupation entails. The very occupation relies on our support. That's why they are parasites.

Interesting. What do you mean by this?

What is Utilitarianism? What is Deontological Ethnics? What is Secular Humanism?

What is your solution to this problem? What is your ideal society? I've been defending my political views for pretty much this entire thread. It's time you put your cards on the table.

I'm a self-described Not Socialist. If you think that's what I was implying you haven't been paying attention.

Philosophical concepts.
People still fucked, drank and had interracial sex in Ancient Rome. There was nothing virtuous about it.

Get rid of the leeches that rule us. No kings. No boss. No rulers.
Direct democracy in at the local level and in the workplace. No leeches, just self-ownership and self-rule.

Okay would you like some essays to read or. There are as many views of socialism and anarchism on the board as there are people. The only thing we agree on is not capitalism.

Some people think market socialism is the stepping stones. Others think not.

Generally people want a smaller state or no state at all. Heres a quick explanation of anarchy. People apply different forms of socialism to it.

No I know you're racist. The point was the comment about having jews as good friends was there to minimize the ethical implications of your generalizations. That, or what I took away from it is that you are a sociopath who would gladly segregate your close friends into ghettos.

What happens once you sent all kings, bosses and rules to the guillotine and have created your ideal society, then new kings, bosses and rules begin to emerge?

History proves that Anarchist societies are in the extreme minority. Perhaps there's a reason for this?

How would it? There is no power-vacuum. This is filled by federations of direct democracies.
I just told you.

Human beings lived as anarchists for the first 2 million years of our existence during the paleolithic stoneage.

500 years ago I could have said that representative societies are in the extreme minority and claim that there's a reason for this.

I was an Anarchist ages ago. I'm somewhat familiar with the primary theoretical currents. I want to know what you think. How would you solve the problem of the elites we've been discussing.

That's because we're in the dark age, and empires decline.

Some wrote this unironically.

I'm talking about before it was an Empire.
Ever heard of the Rape of Sabines?
You're naive if you think that wasn't just the Romans taking a bunch of sex-slaves.

Even in the glory days prostitutes walked the streets. Hell, Caesar even had a child out of wedlock with a foreign queen.

Maybe this should have its own thread, but i always wondered how would such society prevent the spawning of new rulers (though violence or deception etc…).
I mean i can uderstand the appeal of wanting to rule over your fellow men. I'm pretty sure everybody thought at least once that it would be sweet to make someone else do your work…

"Left-Marxism," "Right-Marxism."

What the fuck am I reading here?

My explanation is it's an extremely polarizing ideology that threatens those who people look up.

Labour vouchers would be used instead of currency. This would ensure an actual meritocracy.

I personally am of the opinion that the first step would be market socialism but the goal would be that after a coherent socialist system was set up by the state, it would slowly dissolve itself until the worker run industries could run themselves.

Competition in the beginning stages would ensure that firms found effective ways to run things. But no one would be accumulating "money". They could accumulate personal property based on labor, but you wouldn't be able to invest in something, sit on it and get lucky. Or own a factory etc. Classes would be abolished as far as people have complete economic equality when it comes to opportunity.

Trade between personal property could be done using a barter system.

Eventually these federations of people could come together and organize things in the common interest.

That's my plan. Maybe later I'll try and write a book.

I also used to be a fascist. What a coinkydink.

There are no means of which you can rule over people. If you appeared to be to power hungry the majority would vote you out and if you refused you'd probably be violently or forcibly removed. How can they accumulate power if they have no way to accumulate it other than hard work in order to buy personal property?

I just got it off google rlly quick. :(

Again, federations of direct democracies.
I don't know why this seems like a power-vacuum to people.

This is precisely my problem. Hierarchy and inequality are inevitable facts of life. An Anarchist society would not last for very long before dominant and submissive groups began to form once again.

Why and how?

What are women but sex-slaves? What point are you even trying to make here?

Why did you change?

Because equality is bullshit.

Because all it takes is a few high IQ sociopaths to ruin your egalitarian paradise for everybody.

Besides no.

Human beings are about 2 millions years old.
We're been 12.000 of those.

How would they do this?

You are extremely naive if you think that democracies don't inevitably devolve into military dictatorships.

Remember, the direct democratic greek states only fell to foreign invasions.
There is nothing inevitable about the degeneration of democracy, especially not if it is connected to a federation that can recieve outside help.

Hierarchy is a principle of civilization, some people naturally rule over others. Some people are apathetic and weak-willed, others are more inclined to manage and direct the affairs of others. Your ideals require everyone to be the same, which is antithetical to human nature.

I found a lot of holes in the ideology. The more I thought about it, the more I didn't like the idea of living under an autocratic rule.

Also Hitler hated Jazz music which pretty much killed it for me.

Overall, I met a lot of people I wouldn't want to deport and I realized I didn't want the state looking over me and constantly living in fear.

Equality in everything is not the same as having equal footing economically.

That's why there are small federations. It's not one big bloated democracy. It's many small ones that come together to solve issue and vote amongst themselves and only together when necessary.

That guady smoothened kitsch Nat Socs promote is degeneration already.

We've been hierarchical for 12.000 of those

Again, this is a meme.
There is no hierarchy amongst hunter-gatherers, the way we lived for the majority of our history.
Hierarchy is not natural. It's a new phenomena.

Who the fuck do you think Pericles or Themistocles were? Military dictators pretending that they ruled over a free people. Athens fell to Sparta in the Peloponnesian war after Pericles died, because he was the true strength of Athens.

So there can be leaders and followers. The leaders do not have to exploit those below them who support their lifestyle.

People can be compensated in other ways besides currency

To have this you must have biological equality, otherwise inequality will happen again and again. Equality is a lie in every sense, it's not worth having as an ideal. It's fucking delusional.

Let's say there's a natural disaster like an earthquake, or a cyclone or a volcanic eruption causing massive unemployment, inflation, crime, disorder and general chaos. In the midst of this literal anarchy the citizens of this anarchist society will become desperate for order, for some messianic figure to come along and fix society. This was the case with Adolf Hitler and with several political revolutions in the past. When you look at how easily the average person is manipulated by the mass media and by the education system, who readily they'll follow charismatic liars like Obama or Clinton I don't think this type of ideological transition from Anarchism to Authoritarianism is too unrealistic.

These usually feud and fight, such as in Greece, and the second one becomes more powerful than the other the whole thing crumbles. Might makes right is the eternal rule of politics. Leftism is for retards.

So you think we should live like cavemen? Is that what you're suggesting? No fucking thank you.

Then you aren't even arguing for a leftist perspective at that point. Equality is forever a lie.

No.

When I say "equal footing" I do not mean everyone will be the same and live the same and have the same skills. I mean that people have the same opportunity.

Greece had lot's of other problems. Besides free men who weren't slaves voting does not equal direct democracy.

Pericles was a democratically appointed general. That's not a hierarch. A general in the US Army todays is literally less democratic than he was. That's a representative. Never heard about Themistocles though.

There was a litteral greek dark age too.
That didn't see the degeneration of their democracies either way. Besides global natural disaster like that is very unlikely.

No.
You just said that hierarchy is inherent to being human.
I said it isnt.

That would make sense if you weren't a retard and looked into how leftist talk about how leaders can be rewarded without financial compensation that leads to misery of others.

Again, that means nothing if there's no biological equality, which will never be the case. If you have the same opportunities but you're not actually equal intellectually or physically then those opportunities don't mean shit.

Yes. It means not sabotaging others because "they're inherently inferior".
There is no need to do so, if they truly are. If they are then naturally they will do worse, no discrimination necessary.

Direct democracy is fucking stupid, it's mob rule. The mob is not intelligent, people are generally fucking too stupid to sustain democracy. It always devolves into a military dictatorship. Democracy is rule of the poor and the stupid, 'do whatever you want.'

And he kept that power because he was superior to other people. Superior people always end up ruling over others in democracies.

Jesus christ you're dumb

Here's a Marx quote for you. No one thinks EVERYONE LIVE SAEM HAHA WE FREEEEEEEEE

The idea is that the leaders won't be getting compensated extra financially unless they put in the extra work. They will be recognized in other ways(such as fame) but they will not be exploiting others from the birth of the lower class.

"one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural muh muh privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal"
- Karl Marx, COTGP

I trust my fate better in the hands of the majority than in the hands of a tyrant.

It is. This is clearly shown when humans gain material abundance in civilizations. Your only example of equality is when humans were powerless savages.

Leaders are proof that democracy is bullshit.

If you appeared to be to power hungry the majority would vote you out and if you refused you'd probably be violently or forcibly removed.

This solve an undertaking by brute force but no by deception.

You know, when i think about it,sociopathy is the bigger challenge humanity have to overcome, because whatever system you come up with, they ALWAYS ruin it.

And many times a leader has failed their people, even in non democracies.

Why shouldn't you discriminate if it leads to efficiency?

Yeah so?
What's wrong with being stupid?

Again, he had no power. He was an appointed general, not a dictator.
And I am totally fine with superior people getting their will through, as long as it is democratic. If they truly are smarter and superior, they have nothing to fear from democracy.

Again, not reflected in reality. History indicates otherwise.

Thus when we exit nature.
It means that human beings must always have hierarchy. It is possible to reshape society in such a way that we don't have it anymore.

Because discrimination cannot lead to efficiency.
Non-discrimination means picking those who are best fit for the job. Thus non-discrimination mean optimal efficiency.

And yet it's often the majority that gives power to tyrants. The majority approved of Napoleon and Caesar, the majority is fucking stupid and easily manipulated by demagogues. Fuck democracy and fuck the mob.

That requires discrimination and judgment.

...

And thus no one will be giving power to anyone. If a decision is wrong we can vote to reverse it. There is no representative passing legislature in a bloated beurocacy.

But that is still discrimination, except the criteria are abiliies instead of ethnicity.

Unless there is a subtility in semantics i'm not aware of…

Who says stupid people shouldn't rule themselves? Why do we have no right to stupidity?
And also, if your best criticism is that our system might devolve into your sytem.

It requires judgement, but only of individual merits.

What is wrong with being stupid? What's the point of being smart and efficient if we're not free, happy and having fun?

The mob is a stupid fickle beast that changes it's mind every second of the day. To control such a beast you need to manipulate it and warp it to your will.

So?
If you're truly so superior, surely you'll be able to convince the masses.
If you cannot, then perhaps you're not so great after all.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.

Because there are greater things worth living for, because if you can only live like that in a civilized society that has a hierarchy, because you will accomplish nothing and waste your precious life for short-term gratification. Your attitude is despicable.

Not without creating a dystopia of mediocrity and nihilism. Hierarchy is not a bad thing, it's a good thing.

Like what? What is the purpose of my life beyond my own pleasure?

The average human-lifespan and health drastically decreased with the impementation of hierarchy. You're saying it like its a self-evident truth, that it's in our nature somehow, when it's not.

And sometimes those are contingent on genetic qualities, as much as you wouldn't like to admit.

Hierarchy is an inefficient system that breeds conflict and enables leeches.
We have no need for it.

The cuck meme was just insecure projection after all.

because I am not an idiot

Immortality, space colonization, creating a superior civilization than the one we're living in. Everything that surrounds you is a product of someone being an enemy to happiness.

maybe, maybe not.

Does that change the fact that we should judge people on their ability to do the job?

Sounds like democracy to me.

to build a better world for tomorow, so your children think of you as a hero. Not some shitty ass murdering faggot warrior hero, but a real "saved the world from capitalism" hero.

What's in it for me?
If it doesn't please me to work towards though as a ludic persuit in of itself, then what is the point?

Yes.

then you can just kys

What's in immortality for you? Are you fucking stupid?

Stupid little polyp.

...

Actually the human-lifespan has increased because of hierarchy.

...

...

You don't have rights period. Rights are bullshit. Rights are whatever you want them to be, rights are wishful thinking. If you are stupid then someone will manipulate you, you know that is true.

Because it's basically nationalism + capitalism.

hurrr

Your memes aren't funny, and yes there are greater things worth living for than short-term gratification.

Well because nazism is literally tyranical liberalism for one race.

I thought you meant immortality in the metaphysical sense. As in "building a legacy".
Of course, if that is attainable, it would be fun to explore. I would do it because there is something in it for me.

Yeah. Only since the 1850's though.

It took it 11.050 years to catch up.

You're right. And noone has a right to rule, the right invoked most commonly.

like what? Long-term gratification?

(citation needed)

The advancement of technology is due to hierarchical civilization.

are you Holla Forums stone poster ?

That can only happen in a hierarchical civilization, which you presently aim on fucking up. So no, you can't be a part of it as long as you bitch and moan about equality, sorry.

It is not *due* to it at all.

There was technological development far before hierarchy.
There is nothing indicating they are dependent on each other.

Why?

Well, no, fuck you!

It's not about rights stupid, it's about power. Some people will always have more than others.

Sure.

hurr
It took feudalism+capitalism 2400 years to catch up with the average lifespan of the golden age Athenian citizens who lived on a 2 step hierarchy state (slave

you have no idea what life is about

unless you don't let them.

Because that's the only form of society that will give you that. Do I really have to explain this like you're a four-year old?

...

Assuming you aren't fucking stupid like the majority of people, and given that you're a leftist then probably not.

Fun is a spook.

you cal always organise and kill people in power. It has happened hundreds of times before

Equality is a spook.

Power is granted when people surrender to others. This is often when someone invokes some kind of right to rule.

So… You've still given me no reason to sacrifice myself.
Long-time gratification is still self-gratification.

Why?
Just because it happened in a hierarchical society doesn't mean it can only happen in a hierarchical society.

And for what purpose? So that the mob can tear itself alive? You would only do so at the cost of everything that holds a decent society together. Great men make and break the world, without them you have nothing.

Power is not granted retard, it's taken by force.

Yes I have, even if your too stupid to process it.

read a book.
Why you think you need a king?
Are you that huge of a cuck?

Actually it does.

...

A king, a demagogue, a general, a president, strong men appear in many forms, and without them nothing happens.

Your mom is a spook.

Nietzsche understood this very clearly. Most people are slaves, and few are masters.

...

jesus fucking christ you are a lost cause. Just end your life

How do you command someone who resists you? Even the Romans knew that Victory is something that is granted, not something that is taken.

You haven't.

A conjunction, however constant it may seem, is not the same as

Indeed.
And he hated both masters and slaves.
He sought the Ubermenschen, those who were neither slaves nor masters.

The same as causation

A lost cause to your retarded point of view, yes.

Well some people do and some people don't. That's the whole problem when discussing politics because in every political system, there is always a part of the population who doesn't fit in.
(not the guy you responding to btw))

that is some spooked individual, and not stirner spooked, just in deep fear.
Mommy or daddy issues?

Thinking that we don't need a big daddy to watch over us as adults is retarded?

holy shit Holla Forums is so cucked it's sad.
Unless they think they can be masters themselves, that's tragically funny

People don't resist potential leaders, and sometimes you just have to cull the mob.

Do you know how they dealt with Carthage? They killed every single man capable of fighting after they beat them. Romans didn't give a fuck about your ideals. They would have laughed at you.

No, his ubermench was a master. He did not hate masters. He was a master in a sense. He fucking hated anarchists and socialists and he hated your idealization of the mob. Look up his critiques on Rousseau. He was certainly no leftist. Don't even bring him into this unless you just want to indulge in incoherent tangents.

They don't.
They want subjugation. It's really sad.

You don't act like adults. Leftism is for children.

lmao you are the one who wants an eternal daddy

Sad, ironic and disgusting at the same time.

Every aspect of society around you confirms this.

how

Your denial of the stupidity of the mob is sad. You idealize the stupid, and denigrate the smart.

do you really thing that what we live right now is good? Or it's the best we can have?

All the hierarchy that gives you a working civilization.

We would certainly be happier without non-whites.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality

He absolutely did.
As much as he hated slave-morality he equally hated master morality.

See, and thus they ruled no cartheginian, for they killed them all.
The Cartheginian could only be ruled once they surrendered.

...

He's right. What made Alexander the Great march 3000 miles? What gave Galileo the inspiration to see the universe in a new way and the balls to stick to his convictions? What possesses a man to endure the rigerous entry testing of the SAS or Delta Force? Some people are destined for greatness. Most of us are not. These great people are more likely to leave their mark on humanity than the thousands of angry neckbeards on here or Holla Forums.

It requires being an enemy to happiness, folly and stupidity. It means deny nihilism and living for something beyond mere pleasure. This is expressed aesthetically in Michelangelo's David.

Yeah, so?
Hierarchy gives such individuals less room to influence civilization.

So?

Such as what and why?

My point? All things are not equal.

Are you really telling me you can't detect his mockery of the 'autonomous herd'? Stop asking stupid questions and read again. Nietzsche despised democracy, socialism, and anarchism because these deny the reality of how stupid the mob is.

If you can't influence civilization with hierarchy (particularly one that promotes merit) than you certainly can't influence people when they see each other as equal, even as obvious as a lie as that is.

Definitely ideology
youtube.com/watch?v=18qD9hmU9xg&list=PLX9prRIiZbvkl_46TXtq1xLRNq-efmweU&index=7

Stop being obtuse. Science, art, military stratagem, empire, these things require a denial of pleasure, a denial of your desire for fun, stupidity, and happiness.

hurr how is that?

I get the point for stupidity but
How science and art are requiring a denial of fun and hapiness?

Because they're generally more stupid and we could use their land to promote adventure for the mob. A Nazi masturbation fantasy would give the plebs purpose all by itself.

I know that he's very much against blindly following others without individual though, but I would need a source from where this is from. I haven't read this before, and I've read some Nietzsche.

Still doesn't change the fact that he didn't like masters, and considered them decadent.

No Hierarchy promotes merit.
This is the point.
First and foremost hierarchs prefer loyalty over ability.
This is what makes it less efficient.

Pericles influenced a lot of his equals without being a hierarch. nothing is self-evident about this "truth".

All the constructive ones of those are often done simply for the pleasure of doing so.
Art is leisure, and indeed, so can science be.

oops didn't mean to quote

are you autistic?
Persians

Think about that question long and hard. Would any of the great works of art, or the great works of science happened if those people were just concerned with fucking, smoking weed, and screwing around all day? They applied self-control, they denied their whims to accomplish something. Self-mastery, self-control, these things give us greatness and require that we not be content with just any old product of our imagination.

oh my god your hubris is the Hubris of the white nationalists that lead to Hatei "lol non whites are stupider than me Im a special boy". This caused the Nemesis, people hate white nationalists more than any other nationalist movement. This will lead to Tisis and the fall of the western civilisation. You did it yourselves faggots, you only had to listen.

Beyond Good and Evil, if you've read his works you would have already gotten that though.

You don't know what you're talking about. He, as well as Hegel, idolized Napoleon as a ubermensch, a grand master, a manipulator of the fickle mob. Nietzsche was a philosopher for aristocrats, not plebs.

Or they just enjoyed arts and science more than they liked fucking and smoking weed.
Different people find pleasure in different things.

And an insane amount of will-power.

He also considered Aristocrats decandent.
What he admired was Will to Power, more so than rule itself and rigid hierachy itself. It was the Will that interested him.

Bullshit. Capitalism is a great example of a system that has constantly promoted innovators. Your idealism blinds you to the benefits of inequality. You don't want me to be right.

Pericles was superior, he was a hierarch as much as Caesar was.

Hate white people all you want, you're only adding fuel to our fire.

Or he was just thirsty for fame.

The key word is more. They lived for more than mere fun, more than mere enjoyment. They dedicated themselves to what they did, and that requires more than fun as an incentive.

Thirstier than most.

Nietzsche was an aristocrat you dolt. The will to power is what creates hierarchy. Nietzsche hated leftists, as do all nobles such as myself. You are clay to us.

The more unfettered capitalism is, the lower social mobility, so there's not much to indicate that this is actually true.

That is not what Hierarchy is, but okay.
Pericles would never have been a commander, had he lived in a hierarchy. We was elected because of his merits.

For many of them art and science was fun.

He still didn't like aristocracy and master-morality. He found it preferable to slave-morality, sure, but his ubermensch was neither master nor slave.

And you're not a noble. You'll bleed just the same as the rest of us.

Because just because someone happens to be born as a certain race, it doesn't mean that that person should devote hist life for his race. He did not chose his race, he does not have to be patriotic or nationalistic. Yet, Nazis however, think that everyone should be patriotic or nationalistic, even though they did not have a choice.

And also Nazi Germany was capitalistic.

Leftist want feedom for everyone.

Right wing want to be literal slaves.

Its beyond me. What did Nietzche mean by this?

If everybody concerned themselves with their local environment, their community, would things not be a bit nicer? Community needs common bonds.

where did I say I hate white people?

Anarchists are working-class people with will to power. Nietzsche was just butt-hurt that people found out he ripped stuff from Stirner by the 1890's.

...

Capitalism cannot function without innovation, that is a fact. It requires the constant promotion of innovators in order to spur bull markets.

No, that is what hierarchy is. Hierarchy is inequality, the existence of the better commanding the rest. Great individuals always prove that democracy is bullshit, Pericles is but one example of that.

They had to deny their own satisfaction (the desire to stuff yourself, the desire to have sex all the time, etc.) accomplish anything.

You wouldn't know.

It takes a hell of a lot more to kill me than it does you. Believe that.

Are you white?

you can't prove shit. You are an anonymous prole here. You are not a special boy

Wrong, they want to be masters.

define white

masters to who?

I don't need to be anything to you.

What do you think white is?

then why you call yourself a noble? feudalism is over kiddo

the lack of color for pigment or all colors together for light.

It's merely a fact. Nobles will always exist, and we will always naturally rule over plebs.

He's back!

youtube.com/watch?v=kvDMlk3kSYg

Being an innovator does not make you a shareholder though. This is the issue.

You're conflating two kinds of inequality here.
One is based on personal merits, and that I have nothing againt.
The other is based on right and has nothing to do with personal merits, demostrated clearly by the amount of inbred and mad kings that Europe has had.

Again, Pericles only got into office because of democracy. No democracy, no Pericles.

Why? Perhaps they just had other desires. If making art is better than sex to me, of course I make a lot of art. No self-sacrifice in that.
What would be the point of art if there is no pleasure in it?

Nobles don't exist anymore. You may be the offspirng of people who were nobles.

Bullets pack a hell of a punch though.

I literally am cringing over your autism. I feel bad for you.

If you're not a feudal lord, what the hell makes you a noble?

...

he is LARPing, leave the poor autist alone.

Impotent chest-pounding really is the worst kind

youtube.com/watch?v=oTlzUpmp8sY

Shareholders have nothing to share without business managers promoting innovation. You have no idea how capitalism works, do you? That's probably why you're a leftist, you have no idea how economies function.

Personal merit creates what you call right, I would just call both of those power. There is only power.

By that same retarded logic you might as well say No Leonidas, No sparta.

Leftists always say shit like this. I'm sure it's nothing worth looking at. That would require much more seriousness than you are capable of showing.

Yes we do, and we are among you.

Bullets require money and manpower. Those things require influence and power.

Good thing I don't fucking care.

Nothing is more impotent than an anarchist.

I'm afraid there's a bit more to it than that.

you do

nah son. Anything above that is classism.

Nice argument.

Don't you believe in evolution?

we are all niggers, even you.

lol sorry jamal, I'm not a nigger

Yes.
Thus shareholders make most of the money without actually doing any work.
This is why we call them lleches.

Don't be obtuse. Of course Pericles would still have existed, but we wouldn't have known about him, because he wouldn't have democratically elected to be a general.

I didn't say I make art, what the hell?

How are you a noble? Please explain this.

no you fool, even if race was real, it's more like the dog breeding. You really think a dog breed is more evolved than another? If yes, go back to school you wannabe noble.

yes you are. Post pictures

...

Most people aren't niggers, they've evolved above that.

you sure showed me with that comic. I feel ridiculed now

maybe, but you are one

Did you read it?

Dogs have been subject to selective breeding. Humans haven't.
Hell, we don't even evolve like most other speciest since we're a mutualist speciest with technology.

No jamal, I'm not a nigger.

muh evolushon

can you prove it?

Some shareholders are shareholders of retarded things that don't make money, some shareholders are shareholders of Netflix and do make money. What you hold stock in depends on your intelligence and a certain risk factor. The risk involved in capitalism influences the decisions made by corporations. Corporations don't actually do whatever the fuck they want, they are actually democratic in a sense, but they are more so a meritocratic system whereby hard-work and innovation are promoted and the opposite is demoted. Works a lot better than fucking communism.

Leeches would be people who want welfare and handouts for not doing shit. Leeches want equality because it's easy, leeches want fun in the sun, happiness at the cost of others, and the ability to be stupid at everyone's expense.

Pericles existed by virtue of his superiority, democracy or not.

Bloodline boyo. We keep track of our genetic superiority over millions of years since the dawn of civilization.

...

Selective pressures exist without humans. Nature selects which mutations benefit the animal and which ones will destroy it. Humans evolve just like every other animal. Do not deny the reality that speciation is still occuring even now.

Your argument is posting one picture beside another. Fantastic. All I've got to say is bell curve, right?

...

Except human are shaping their surroundings much more than any of other species on earth.
Selective pressure applying now to humans is the one resulting for the environnment we ourselves created.

Yeah.
Or you just inherited it. Which as I stated, is the most normal thing.

What work do shareholders do?

You assume that anyone that is superior will magically have power.
If that was true, why did incompetent kings exist?

Again, hierarchy amongst human beings is 12.000 years old tops.
Grats on the blood. Do you hold power?

No. The point of natural selection is taht species adapt themselves to nature.
We haven't done that for a long time now.
We have something called technology you see, which means we adopt nature to ourselves, rather than adapt ourselves to nature.

Thus we're not subject to the same selective pressures as a lot other species are.

Creating an ecological niche doesn't preclude speciation. Even before civilization, subspeciation between the different present races became clearly defined. Niggers clearly never advanced beyond a certain level, and are clearly not capable of doing so.

Which selective pressures were europeans under that Africans did not face as well?
Subsaharan Arfrica is not that fertile. Europe is much easier to get resources from.

fugg

wew lad

Whether or not you inherit something, the question is always whether you are capable of holding onto it, whether you are as capable of making good decisions as your father. Evolution is at work even within civilization. Plenty of people inherit power and squander it entirely, those people are inferior.

They take risks that they are either punished for or rewarded for, they are an expression of demand. They can be just like a fickle mob.

Not magically, but naturally. Such is the history of mankind.

Because virtue is not always hereditary, sometimes it is though. Some people breed with the wrong women, or bring up their children without discipline, some men are not strong enough patriarchs.

Naturally.

Insane amounts of war and an unforgiving environment that is far more cold.

Depends on how you do it tbqh.

gee I don't know
like during winter when it turns into a frozen wasteland?

Which is fucking easy when you hire CEOs to run the company for you and you just sit back and skim of the profits.

These two statements are contradictory.

Are you a feudal lord?

Why would more war make you less prone to violence?
How does Europe being more cold mean it's less fertile?
It's much more fertile! Crops are way easier to grow.

This all sounds a little like cosmic ice theory.

CEOs who have to be capable of managing millions of jobs and investing capital in order to create a profit. Being a CEO isn't as easy as you think it is. With great power comes great responsibility, remember that.

No, genetic factors influence individual merit, but being disciplined as a child also factors in. Most people aren't properly disciplined in a democracy, and democracies are naturally hedonistic hellholes that promote a do whatever you like, be happy, ignorant, stupid, and have fun mentality. Just like you think people should be right?

I might as well consider myself as such.

When did I say anything of the sort, where is that even implied? Europeans being so prone to violence and war has given us unique genetic qualities that make us very efficient at war. I will say though, the more efficient at war, the easier you will achieve peace.

To make an argument that I don't even care to make, you could argue that nigger violence correlates with their exposure to the sun.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840

Though I think that europeans are just too damn good at war, and that's what made us imperialistic and superior to all other people. Multiculturalism and democracy will kill us if we allow it to continue.

Europe is in the Temperate zone, which means that is perfect for crops, and rain is rather consistent.
The problem with the tropical zone is that it often either rains way too much for crops or it doesn't rain at all.
This means that survival was much harder in subsaharan Africa and indeed they've had a lot more selective pressure on them.

because you can't grow crops during the winter you dumb idiot. having to store months worth of resources to survive every year is a selective pressure that breeds for forward planning ability.
because Europe fought the toughest wars in history which forced technological advance and innovation. this pressure for intellectualism lead to more civilized societies.

KEK

There is something about the tropical zone that creates inferior people. Hispanics, niggers, south-east asian people are usually those who are ruled by dictators and empires. I think that it's a rule that the hotter it is, the lazier people are. Northern europeans are notorious for being hard-workers, the protestant ethic and all.

Yeah, and so the shareholders take a quick peek at his or her credentials and hire that person, leans back and take the lion's share of the profits.
Such meritocracy.
No leeching at all.

Yes, but you also acknowleged that the king is not necessarily the most capable person. Meaning that hierarchy at least potentially can keep the more capable down.
Meaning that there is no guarentee that Pericles would have come to power without democracy either.

Do you have knights swearing fealty to you? Do you own your own land and have peasants work for you?

It is often said that europeans are genetically less prone to violence that sub-saharan africans. Why is this, when we had more war than them, appearently? Would there not me selective pressure on europeans to be more prone to violence?

There are also certain hunting seasons in Africa, and gathering seasons all which have to taken into account. That said, farming generally takes a lot less planning than hunting does.

It also produced the only empire in the Americas.

because it's not about the difficulty of survival, it's about whether it requires long term planning or just day-to-day.

alright fam

You're ignoring all the hard work involved, that's willfull ignorance. Don't make me repeat myself young man, shareholders don't always get rewarded, sometimes the money they invest goes to waste. Investments require risk taking, which requires intelligent decision making. It's communism that promotes leeching off of others.

There is no guarantee that he would have come to power with democracy. It was his own sheer ability, and for much of the middle ages kings were elected, and when a king was incompetent he fell out of power and a new dynasty was established. Are you connecting the fucking dots? I'm about done pointing out the obvious. Powerful people rule you regardless of the system you put in place. The weak will always submit, and the strong will always assert themselves. Equality is a bold-faced lie. Hierarchy is a natural product of the inequality of humans.

It tooks wayyyyy more time than anything that Europe created, and it fell quite easily. Not much of an empire if you ask me.

But it is!
If there is no evolutionary pressure to do so, meaning that those who are less capable of doing it die off, then it doesn't get adapted.
How easy it is to survive is exactly the key here.

Investing is not "hard" work. It's about taking a gamble. Even so, a lot of shareholders just inherent from their parents and hire a CEO with a nice resume and that's the end of it.

It's ludicrous to believe that such laziness entitles one to an income that can be million of times higher than the workers under you that generate all the wealth.
It's leeching because we don't need the leaders.

It was exactly because of democracy. Pericles was educated in rheotrics and was so good at it that his funeral-speech is still taught in rhetorics-courses. Had he not been skilled he wouldn't have been elected, and if he couldn't convince the others to elect him, perhaps he wouldn't have been superior after all.

Charles II of Spain was a total retard and died a natural death, still upon the throne.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

food doesn't just lie around

another point that proves that nationalism is shit. Thanks.

It sorta does (that's the "gatherer" part of "hunter-gatherer"), but if it's easy to grow crops, the selective pressure on you decreases significantly.

Because Hitler turned that ideology into pure poisoning of the well -fallacy. Whole organized racial categorization + irrational need for escape goat(jews) just turned it into silliness and pure iditiocracy.

it's not though, if you can survive on a daily basis without having to build a civilization then you won't end up building a civilization and will stay forever nigger mode.
gambling with your entire fortune/inheritance may not be hard work in the classical sense but it is risky as hell and can leave you destitute if you fuck up.
and where does the wealth they inherited come from? you think their ancestors had their money grow on trees?
so why is there always a power vacuum when leaders are removed?

you know, you aren't as LOGICAL AND REASONABLE as you think just going "muh fallacies"
>>>/reddit/

what the fuck am I reading

Building a civilization require a HUGE amount or surplus. It becomes much easier when the land is fertile, just as what happened in Europe. Civilization was never a necessity, it was the benefit of good land.

Which is why most bourgeoisie people don't actually gamble with their own money, but take loans instead. Thus why some bourgeois people can go bankrupt with companies several times without personally going bankrupt.

Do I get to be a lazy leech just because my father wasn't?

There isn't necessarily.
Democracies in Greece existed for a good 700 years. That would never have been possible if it was a true power-vacuum.

Do you like talking in circles or do you have a fucking point?

The fuck?

no it doesn't, fertile land doesn't mean crops just magically appear and turn into food on your table. also, what about African farms? there were white farmers in sub-saharan Africa too until niggers decided to genocide them, take their farms and completely fail at maintaining them. if farming is so easy, how come niggers couldn't even maintain the farms that were already there?
yes it was, having to hoard your resources and then protect them from organized marauding armies necessitated it.
if you can afford it? yes. or do you think you should voluntarily go back to square one, nullifying your father's life's work?
this is so stupid it's not even an argument

No, but it takes sustantially less work and planning, not to forget luck.

Those were either

1) in the temperate zone in the south, where population level just were too small anyways to really warrant a shift to agrianism

or

2) heavily dependent upon chemical fertilizers, often from the West.

It was a necessity to guard over a huge surplus stemming from fertile land, not inherently in-of-itself.
No that was sort of my point, that civilization was just a consequence of an abundance of readily available food.

Indeed. I believe in personal and individual merit. I seek to abolish inheritance.

Good for you, because this was certainly no retort.

have you ever been in the vicinity of anyone who knew someone involved in farm work?
but you said farming required less hard work and forward planning than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of niggers. surely, if niggers possessed forward planning capabilities on par with white man's, acquiring fertilizer as part of a farming infrastructure that had already been set up should've been easy?
where did you get this huge surplus meme? people used to store enough food to last between harvests and would be subject to famines whenever the harvest was shit.
which was made readily available by hard, organized work and forward planning

I am a farmer-student.
So.
Yes.

Why? Chemical fertilizers have to be imported, and in many of these cases they just broke ties with the nations that could have sold them such fertilizer.

Huge surplus in that the ground yielded a lot of produce that thus could feed more people with less work, freeing up more labour to expand.

Again, way less hard and organized than it would have to be in sub-saharan Africa.
That's the point. Europeans got it easy. Europe is easy mode when it comes to agriculture, and that meant a lot back in those days.

If the soil is not good enough, you simply can't build a civilization.

So you are either full of shit or you are going to fail as a student. You realize that there is no need to import fertilizer right? Cows poop out fertilizer, you poop out fertilizer. Food compost is fertilizer. These all are perfectly sufficient. You're excusing niggers for not being able to function on the most basic level is fucking sad.

B but i will be master when Nazi masturbation fantasy ends.

Yes, but in order to get that to work you need to be fairly well-versed in organic farming, which granted I am learning, but that these africans, nor the white people that came before them had very little knowlege of.

In order to farm effectively in tropical africa, you need chemical fertilizer, which is oil based and made in factories. Cow dung simply won't do if you don't know what you're doing.

Besides, cattle have to eat stuff to produce that dung, and if the soil is pretty bad already, it's not even certain that you can sustain a large enough amount of cattle to produce a meaningful amount of dung.

The "human nature" argument. Is it not culture itself which gives the idea of the "strong" and the "weak"?

Human nature isn't an argument, it's real. You are basically saying everything is nurture and nothing is nature (the human mind is a blank slate) contrary to everything that has been learned in the last two hundred years. Instinct teaches you what strong and weak are, not merely culture. You can't pretend away genetics.

Why arent these fascist banned? Pol is a hugox echochamber and we have free speech.

doesn't sound like great forward planning
so I guess no farmland available in the entire sub-saharan region, right?
doesn't explain the lack of equally great civilizations in the Americas.

Human nature is mainly set upon the goal of survival, whether it be by manipulation of others or collective survival.

So on that account how did central americans ever achieve large-scale farming without chemicals? Face it, niggers are fucking stupid and can't into civilization.

Pick one.

I disregarded none of those things. You just tried to argue that 'culture' taught us what strong and weak are like a fucking retard. Even dumber forms of life know what strong and weak are on an instinctual level. Don't dig yourself a hole.

...

...

We have freedom of religion, we can't ban muslims!

As I said before: "Human nature is mainly set upon the goal of survival, whether it be by manipulation of others or collective survival."

Socialism teaches the latter; capitalism teaches the former. Culture has more influence than human nature; technology has "moved the goalposts" for me.

…and?

wew lad

And so niggers have to be given things by whitey, they aren't capable of inventing these things. They aren't capable of creating civilizations. They live in mudhuts, bang on drums all day, and twerk around campfires. They're fucking apes.

...

So white people are inherently superior because they can build a civilisation that ends up as horrible as this?

Meanwhile, on black building civilisations themselves:

atlantablackstar.com/2014/04/16/5-ancient-black-civilizations-africa/
goodreads.com/book/show/2858266-when-we-ruled

Get readin', cumskin.

You said originally that culture teaches us what strong and weak are. That's one of the dumbest things I've heard on this board yet. The human mind is not a blank slate, your genes determine a certain degree of your intelligence and no amount of technology will prevent that.

WE

Perhaps not, but I don't think they necessarily thought about agriculture when they had a political revolution.

Surpringly little, especially without chemical fertilizers, since most places either get too much or too little rain.
The exception is south africa, the region.
And even that is not great compared to France.

Meso america (much of which is in the temperate belt) saw civilizations that could easily rival medieval europeans.
They did lack good iron ore though, so they couldn't make the steel armour that the europeans were famous for.

Native-Americans are in current society only a few IQ points over african americans. Yes, they made some great civilizations, but the climate is not the *exact* same, and middle america is somewhat better for pastorialism, especially with tubers like the potato.

Well?

As horrible as what? The only terrible aspects of western civilization are due to us breeding with shitskins and promoting democracy.

also

WE WUZ AND KANZ AND SHEEEIIIT

WUZ

HOL UP

Actually, it does. Define "weak" and "strong".

And surprise surprise, they're both easily controlled by white people.

smacks lips

SO YOU BE SAYIN'

How come they built a huge empire with great temples and art though, if IQ is inherent and all that matter?

Let's see: what's "terrible" about the West to you?

For one thing we've already been over this in the thread already, secondly it took them exponentially longer than it did for other civilizations, thirdly white people fucking rekt their shit.

Admit it. White people are fucking awesome, we're the best.

We waz totally not cucks and masters n shiet.

You mean materialism? That's just as much the problem with capitalism as it as communism. Both are completely devoid of real culture.

still doesn't explain the lack of a superior civilization in Northern America where everything Europe had was also available.

I wonder if that's the case if their collective culture's spreading to you and invading yours like your ilk say it is. Can it not withstand this onslaught if you're superior?

weak

Define "superior civilisation".

Define "real culture".

Of course. That's why white people are shifting right retard.

THE FIRE RISES

I don't support NeetSocialism because I know Sauron was a genocidal faggot.

Think of it as humans vs. orcs.

a civilization anywhere near the level of Europe

ethnic-based culture mainly, common languages, common traditions, customs, common background

…and so are blacks, who want their own racial stake on this. In fact, many conservatives don't think so badly of blacks. But of course, they're not true cons.

HOL UP HOL UP
*steals bicycle*

niggers are chimping as usual, they will be fucking dead when white people decide they're fed up

just look up the anglo-zulu war bruh

Which, by Holla Forums's own thinking, is in decline?

The """"superior""""" Europe who is being """"destroyed""""

ayy lmao

Define your ethics. Technically all human ancestry traces back to Kenya.

This is the part where you drift out of being serious and into the land of spooks.

*SINKS ATLANTIS*

AY HOLD UP YOU SAYIN WE BE ALIENS AND SHIZ?

wew

Are you going to get around to making a point?

DAS RITE

Hey, wait, isn't that full of relatively relaxed lefties?

equality is a spook

oops, this post is meant for you

what are you on about fam

Not an argument.

Of course; it's unfeasible. However, forced inequality, like what you advocate, isn't. Your entitlements are spooks.

Not really.

Inequality doesn't need to forced, it's natural. However you are the one that demands forcing equality down people's throats.

Bait.

We're correcting our mistakes as we shitpost.

Robespierre did nothing wrong.
Cut the heads of the aristocracy, roll them down the hill.

Remind me what happened to Robespierre again.

...

...

...

pathetic bro

He won.

French Revolution best day of my life.

Just using your words, not mine.

A degree of altruism doesn't cancel out the existence of inequality.

Help me find them, I can't find them.

are you actually this retarded?

unless you're gas yourself

...

Tell me how he died though. Remind me what happened in 1794. Please.

how does Robespierre come into comparing European agriculture to NA pre-colonization?

When did I use the word complete, what would that even mean? I'm just saying it exists and entails that you have to force equality where it doesn't.

Lmao. Are you really this desperate?

Tell me how Hitler died. Remind me what happened in 1945. Please.

So now that's what you're advocating?

He wasn't killed by the people who supported him. Robespierre was killed by the very thing he created. Hitler was killed by commies and capitalists uniting Also zizek apparently supports anti-immigration policies now?

You seem to think that I am for complete equality. I'm for greater equality.

No. That's what communism is. Forced equality.

wew lad

So you're trying to force inequality because it's "natural"?

Tell me when enough's enough.

Okay.

No. Unlike Robespierre, Hitler was a pussy that when confronted with what he had "accomplished" preferred to kill himself, in the most aryan way, of course.

Okay, fellow Holla Forumsyps. Time to read Zizek.

Unnatural equality, that will inevitably fall back into a state of inequality because you think if you just redistribute wealth people will magically become equally intelligent and scarcity will stop existing. Have fun with breadlines faggot. Did the Soviet Union teach you nothing? No, it didn't. You don't even want to admit it was legit fucking communism.

...

Get off of the Internet and live in a cave.

Define "natural equality".

I'm not forcing anything. I'm having to fight against the forced equality of multiculturalism created by leftist faggots and globalists who exploit leftism. I just want my people to be able to have a place of their own, but I suppose that means that somewhere along the line we'll just need to gas all the non-whites so we can take their land.

No faggot. Stop asking me to define things for you and make a fucking point.

You're basically doing the same thing as those against multiculturalism criticise various groups for. You want white ghettos.

Hitler fought against communism and capitalism at the same fucking time. I commend the guy for trying something so ballsy. Robespierre was a true leftist who got what he deserved, his own medicine.

Zizek is a blathering moron. Don't tell me to read your brainwash.

what does an artificial means of communication have to do with inequality?

I'm giving you the driving seat. Don't get salty if you can't drive.

the memes are real

What? lol Africans have africa, they can fucking go there, Asians have asia, do you see the pattern? Why can't european people have europe? Why can't white Americans keep america white?

Surely it's an artificial environment, thus it does not have natural settings.

...

You are failing to make points and are falling into semantics as a substitution for having a point.

why the fuck would white people have to live in ghettos in their own homeland?

The neo-nazies of Holla Forums are literal zombies, they enjoy their ignorance it's pointless to debate with them. just sage and move on.

...

define communism
define equality
define zizek
define classcuck
define spook

that means a lot coming from a communist

Because "blacks are invading"!

what about europeans having europe?

We could just kill them all. Is that what you want us to do?

...

you were utterly wrecked in this thread, yet you keep hanging around trolling and arguing semantics, you don't want to debate, but just to annoy people.

rude sage

where did I get wrecked exactly? I'm not sure you know what getting rekt means.

Read Baudrillard. This new "nature" is fundamentally different; new emphases are put on equality and anonymity.

Let's see how far you get.

Baudrillard is as nonsensical and retarded as Zizek. Pseudo-philosophers galore.

Again, colonalism. Why couldn't they keep to themselves?

or you could've just defined "natural equality" as equality occurring in nature, which it doesn't so it's not a real concept.

…because he attacked your sense of meanings?

P U R E I D E O L O G Y

youtube.com/watch?v=HnJZ2haLPCw

It wouldn't take long at all.

It does. Humans are born with very similar genes.

About that…

youtube.com/watch?v=pLoel5EKT34

you went straight for the human nature meme, and the posters here pointed out how it's prominently bullshit.

Basic reasoning can tell you that's the no1 fallacy one does not use in an argument. So when you were wrecked you started arguing semantics instead of theory like the philosophical illiterate idiot you are.

He didn't attack anything. They're both fucking retarded.

pure fucking cancer

How d'you know that you're not in one of those simulacra yourself?

they did? I don't remember that at all. Also human nature isn't a meme faggot.

It's real. Your tabula rasa shit is outdated as fuck.

...

I never said it wasn't. Culture's overridden it.

LOCKE BTFO

LIBERALS BTFO

CAPITALISM BTFO

A most sophisticated reply. It tells me what you're here to do.

No one here argued here for that, strawman all you like, it only means you have no arguments left and are literally just trolling/spouting your opinions.

next time read a book and come up with proper arguments, because you are just embarrassing.

Like I said, that argument is outdated as fuck. Evolutionary theory and genetics says otherwise.

That's because culture has evolved and has now come to contradict the "human nature" you speak of. How come culture became multicultural?

Oh, yeah, consider epigenetics, too.

If I read the bible do you think that would help? What about marxist brainwash? How about I just think for myself?

...

"thinking for yourself"

"Human nature" says you're not.

Great move.

How can you think for yourself? You can't. Human nature does not allow it.

Gee, I've not a fucking clue. Maybe it's because we killed all those darned nazis and gave nigger rights, and started promoting equality. But why did we start doing that?

What?

read anything describing human nature as far back as antiquity and realize there's nothing new about it.

wew lad

yep, not killing you off was definitely a mistake

genetic similarity doesn't mean equal ability

I dunno, is it culture?

It cannot be done.

What?

Lel.

...

If it's "a product of human nature", then how did it develop into multiculturalism?

Idpol.

That's exactly how things worked out in South Africa. And Rhodesia. And everywhere else.

"Whites" saw what they did and just gave up!

Truly, the master race indeed.

Because democracy appeals to the lowest common denominator.

Since you invaded. Start sagin'.

How about no.

...

Yes it does?

Any evidence?

what?

culture contradicting human nature doesn't mean it's overtaken it. multiculturalism is a consequence of maladaptive altruism and virtue signalling. in the end it will come crashing down as human nature wins yet again.

You better believe it: I'm asking for evidence!

Jealous of low iqs? It's like you're accusing me of being jealous of a cockroach.

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point.

Like the fascist orders. Y'know, how did the world develop as it has done?

Through force and accumulation of power, which whites have always been the best at.

Not backing yourself up well here.

I really don't know what you're talking about.

You can use google, I'm sure you're aware of it. Do I need to explain evolutionary theory to you as well?

You are lulzworthy. That's why I've been having this shit-flinging match with you.

Welp, I'll leave you to keep shilling. Your guesses solely count, after all.

You have me confused with another user.

[citation needed]

wew lad, good luck with that

pick one

yeah pretty much

not really. multicultural "societies" won't need to be bombed into the ground to fail, it'll happen naturally.

...

pls don't.

Fascism failed even when there were no bombs. USSR had massive trade embargoes while west Europe got gibsmedats from the US.

pic

source

Forced by da Joos?
Nationalism was very discredited in the eyes of Intellectuals and common people alike after 2 world wars caused by Nationalistic sentiments.
Also as markets interconnect so do cultures, which is why we're all writting in this Barbaric language right now.

source

Left Spain lagging behind most of Western Europe and millions of innocents dead, and GDP was worse in Chile than before Pinochet with a similar amount of innocents dead.

because it means i would have to cite 90% of the world's intellectuals.kys

You cherry pick post. People gave you well thought out contentions. You started off blithering about how we can't separate the good from bad jews or niggers or whatever, of which I gave you two 50 page papers refuting those points as something even remotely concrete of which you never responded to.

The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you, just as he screams deceiver as he lies to you.

at first i was horrified!!!cant mummies and aunties let us boys have our willies?cannot a man waggle in peaceth?i was considering the pre-emptive genocide of all women when i discovered my mummy was just giving my daddy a "blow job"!!!!!!!oh man me matesnow this is a new development in waggling your willy!!!just use one of your mates mouths until you reach fulljoy and shoot willy juice!!!cumon me mates, lets blow eachothers willies in me treehouse.!!!!aaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA THIS IS PLEASURE 2.0!!!!!!!!!!!!iM FEELIN THE WILLYFEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMY WILLYHASNEVERBEENSOPLEASURED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!wWWWWWWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!…..icum in your mouth matey…ahhh..relief!!!!

I'm a Jew.