

/lounge/ - Lounge

The Wizard's Lounge
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1565353337904.jpg (61.83 KB, 394x766, 197:383, o439rkl3rle31.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

 No.223789[Last 50 Posts]

This thread is for the civil discussion of anything towards a political nature, especially political ideology and current affairs.

Archive link of last threads
#1: Politics Thread https://web.archive.org/web/20170404000746/http://wizchan.org/lounge/res/133215.html
Politics Thread #2: Wizlam Edition - https://web.archive.org/web/20170404000634/wizchan.org/lounge/res/135806.html
Politics Thread #4: Wizpilled Edition 5/12/2017 - http://archive.is/3wlfT
Politics Thread #5: All So Tiresome Edition 7/3/2017 - https://archive.is/QlRs1
Politics Thread #6: World on Fire Edition 8/18/2017 - https://archive.is/6YxvY
Politics Thread #7: Temptations Intensify Edition 8/31/17 - https://archive.is/Y0JQu
Politics Thread #8: Left and Right Edition 10/11/17 - https://archive.is/H0llg
Politics Thread #9: Reading Anything Online Edition 11/7/17 - https://archive.is/yxGrJ
Politics Thread #10: The Truth Will Set You Free Edition http://archive.is/UrurS
Politics Thread #11: someone had to make it edition - http://archive.is/y71b2
Politics Thread #12: Fuck the pastebin edition - http://archive.is/wD4il
Politics Thread #13: Ironic Marxist Edition - http://archive.is/xfWZY
Politics Thread #14: Civil Discussion Edition - http://archive.is/Ck8Xe
Politics Thread #15: Over My Dead Body Edition - http://archive.is/xdMoH
Politics Thread #16: Missile Strikes for Peace edition - http://archive.is/PP3tS
Politics Thread #17: Anti-Meme Edition - http://archive.is/YxJMy
Politics Thread #18: Quote Mine Edition - http://archive.is/mi2ZU
Politics Thread #19: Lady Justice Edition - http://archive.is/JQeyd
Politics Thread #20: France Edition - http://archive.is/9d9op
Politics Thread #21: Anime Political Meme Edition - http://archive.is/K8OvE
Politics Thread #22: Verified Hate Edition -http://archive.is/AVoyW
Politics Thread #23: Hail to the Philosopher King Edition - https://archive.is/ooZI4
Politics Thread #24: Supreme Edition - https://archive.fo/TvRnm
Politics Thread #25: The Final Judgment Edition - https://archive.is/0MaGf
Politics Thread #26: Non-player Character Edition - https://archive.is/IvRUj
Politics Thread #27: Birthright Edition - https://archive.is/Fy4ox
Politics Thread #28: Shut It Down Edition - http://archive.vn/6l87I
Politics Thread #29: Brand New Current Year Edition - http://archive.vn/pGEPL
Politics Thread #30: It's Okay To Smirk Edition - https://archive.fo/5gv13
Politics Thread #31: It Begins Edition - http://archive.fo/eaSIz
Politics Thread #32: Free Choice Edition - https://archive.is/TTGTC
Politics Thread #33: Accelerationism edition - https://archive.fo/eFfBY
Politics Thread #34: Clown World Edition - http://archive.is/8AYmV
Politics Thread #35: Show Some Class Edition - http://archive.is/KzuHY
Politics Thread #36: Proper Politics Thread Edition - https://archive.fo/TuUNL
Politics Thread #37: Political Manipulation Edition - https://archive.fo/GfoQg
Politics Thread #38: Epstein's Pedophile Sting Operation Edition - https://archive.fo/qXKJi


File: 1565353378072.mp4 (7.33 MB, 640x360, 16:9, lm2rj.mp4) ImgOps iqdb


File: 1565356990622.png (574.26 KB, 610x804, 305:402, 1565035913160.png) ImgOps iqdb


Do people really believe this?


Some do.
Never met one that actually was a teen or adult from that time to believe such hogwash. It is from people who want to believe in a idyllic past and will ignore the facts if it gets in the way of their fantasy.

At least they are generally harmless though. Unlike the people who dream of utopian futures so bright that they think any dark means is worth it for the light will disinfect it's stain.


Yes because it's true.

The end justifies the mean.

Any means necessary is my motto.


never read anything more delusional


This stuff about whether this shooter is racist or that shooter is antifa reminds me of a spurdo comic where the tv was announcing a shooting and one american bear was rooting for it to be a "islamic communist" and another for it to be a right winger. Can't find it now.


Who the hell is this twitter user and why is he on the OP?


dayton shooter


it looks like shitty photoshop


What's not to believe? Most of it seems factual at least.


File: 1565400531646.png (92.67 KB, 600x847, 600:847, Screenshot_2019-08-10 Flow….png) ImgOps iqdb

I don't think it is.


Really? Didn't even know there was another shooting besides the El paso one


>being this ignorant
You're a perfect example of how tight a stranglehold the kike media have on shit.


Mainstream media did talk about the shooting in Dayton and talked a lot about there being multiple shootings in a single day. Of course, they gave it a lot less attention specifically because it wasn't as useful to their narrative.


I'm not implying there's a news blackout on it (many other things, yes). They just buried it over after a day or two of light coverage and that's it.


Epstein died for those of you who don't know.


This is insane. If public trust in authority figures doesn't drop at least another 10% because of this I will completely lose any hope in humanity.


File: 1565459784312.jpg (174.55 KB, 1080x765, 24:17, hmmmmm.jpg) ImgOps iqdb


Haha, oh wow.


I don't live in the US, plus haven't watched much news on the last few weeks. Only found about the el paso shooting because of the 8chan shutdown


He only killed 9 people.
El Paso shooter killed 20.
Dayton left no manifesto and the most probable motive was rape fantasies since political purpose had no clear relevance to the act itself.
El Paso had a manifesto clearly linking his personal politics to the act.
Why is there supposed to be some equivalence just because both involved shooting people?


It is even starting to get the notice of the normies to the point that no one was surprised at this.
There was no way he was going to make it to trial if he had something damaging to say about the Clintons and their friends.


was he angry his sister was dating a black guy?


I'm going to be edgy contrarian and say that it was prison incompetence not a conspiracy that let Epstein suicide.


The NWO are supposed to be smart people who run the world behind the scenes they could be more comptentent


Are there any voluntary euthanasia, suicide, and anti-reproduction political writers?

I'm thinking along the lines that accepting there are unequal power dynamics in society so it is wrong for the poor or minorities to reproduce, and, largely that maybe 75-95% of the worlds population should commit suicide? The poor, the alienated, the powerless, the oppressed - their plights are real and creating more people in that situation is unethical and suicide is the right answer for those already in it.

I believe entire cultures, entire races, entire genetic lines should really commit mass suicide. Each year billions should be born and billions should commit suicide, hyper evolution through voluntary end. Yes you are poor and that means the rich will always shape things towards their benefit, but, that is the law of the universe - let us end our situation through mass suicide.

Anybody who believes in that I could look up?


Even most poor people don't actually want to die though.


Someone kill me, i cnt kill myself ;(


Yeah that about sums it up.

The last hundred or so years the main approach to the "inequality problem" is to drag (almost) everyone down to the bottom (communism).
I am pretty sure most consider death oppression so trying to get all the poor people to kill themselves is the ultimate oppression.


What does that have to do with anything? Even so, I think they are not, or there would not be so may poor people.


He is a low IQ /b/ poster.
Just ignore him as he has nothing to contribute to the conversation.


They aren't 'crabs' that is just western propaganda. They simply don't have the culture of casual sex(dating) like we do in the west. Really only trollops date in Japan, most Japanese people are virgins until marriage, that is why the statistics say that most young people are virgins, most young people are not married.


Not him but you claim there is no universal truth and criticise how somebody is supposedly proposing a one way dialogue yet just previously you make the ludicrous and sweeping assumption that all poor people want to die. Do you not understand how ridiculous you are being?


Man this thread is more retarded than usual. Hiding.


>Why is there supposed to be some equivalence just because both involved shooting people?
Oh right I forgot a crime eviler if it's by a white person thinking "hate" thoughts.


All opinions aren't equal.
Going lol crabs at everything is dumb and the person doing it isn't worth taking even remotely seriously.
Just because you shit something out from your mind doesn't mean anyone should respect it.

Or to simplify things to your level.
Fuck off retard


The strawman construction contest begins.


No, just exposing what you clearly implied back there.


I'm not who you posted that.
I am just pointing out your continued irrationally.
Pretending people said or argue for things thay clearly didn't say doesn't point out anything other than the fact that you can't address what was actually said.


Let's be honest here, this doesn't matter. If the only thing that the El Paso shooter did was attend a Trump rally once in 2016, that would've been enough of a "connection" for the mainstream media and the left in general to create a narrative, and you'd gladly accept that narrative and call him a right wing extremist.


It seems to me to be a paradox that these shadowy conspiratorial forces are suave and skillful enough to rule the world behind the scenes, while idiotic enough to execute Epstein in such clumsy a way as every single genius in the Youtube comments section can figure it out


9 people weighed against 20 people.
Personal insanity with no relation to ongoing news weighed against deliberate purpose directly related to continually flowing political news.
You are extremely dishonest.


There was that one group that pays poor people to sterilize themselves. Just think of how much of a better position the world would be in if people put their money into groups like that instead of other charities.


bill gates put a lot of money into 3rd world birth control


Maybe you should check your premises.
A erroneous assumption you are making is leading to things not logically lining up.


>You are extremely dishonest.
The "white supremacism" focus all over the el paso thing is not directly related to any current political news. "White supremacism" is not a thing. The kike media are deliberately ignoring one shooting and exploiting another to forcefeed us a manufactured "narrative," but pointing that out makes me the one being dishonest. Right.
>9 people weighed against 20 people.
We're supposed to believe a tiny difference in death toll helps explain a 100% slant in media attention. It doesn't. This is all about the j-left political agenda. If the death tolls were reversed the news coverage would still be just as slanted.


>"White supremacism" is not a thing. The kike media


>naming jewish media control makes "white supremacy" a thing


pretty much. they will not stop with the shootings either. there will be more coming ahead. they basically want to disarm us and do to america what they did to russia.


this post doesn't seem political at first but bear with me. i have a question i'm hoping you can help me with.

i make youtube vlogs once in a while, they get like 30 views. today i uploaded one and some group of cultist normalfags happened upon it because they were googling some terms and had it set to most recent results. one of the terms was in my video title.

they started literally harassing me and three of them were spamming my comment section with overly positive reinforcement and acting like we're old friends and invited me to a chat room without even telling me what it's about first. just vague stuff like "we're all friends here".

so i join and they're all watching some livestreamer, their leader as i came to find out, and he's just reading random news articles in front of a camera. i immediately ask what the fuck is this. they tell me "you probably know us as QAnon. you seemed like you were lost and needed a friend."

I ctrl+fed my username in the chat and they had been discussing me extensively for several hours and had three "recruiters" sent out to recruit me and they discussed in depth the ramifications of taking in a new outsider before agreeing to invite me and they discussed the content of my video and determined that i was basically a loser and easy pickings and that i'd probably appreciate any socializing at all and they think they're being charitable heroes for bringing me into their cult.

all of them are figuratively sucking my dick and telling me i'm awesome and trying to condition me even though they know nothing about me other than 1 video they skimmed through.

i have no idea what QAnon is. i don't follow politics much anymore. i asked again "what the fuck is happening" and they linked me weird 2 hour long videos and started rambling about aliens and how sexy trump is and i still have no idea what is happening. they started talking about how their research got them gangstalked and told me on probably on a watchlist now just for interacting with them (i don't believe that, these guys are nobodies and do nothing but talk from the looks of it).

anyway it's all just fascinated me a lot and i just wanted to ask, yet again, hoping to get an answer this time:
what the fuck is QAnon? and are these weird donald trump normalfag cults common? do you think i should stick around and observe them or are they just boring retards? i haven't had any fun like this in a while.
the chat is filled with succubi and they all post from their smartphones and i have no idea what's happening still. they're discussing the implications of some succubus flying on clinton's private jet recently or something.

dont worry i have no intention of being their friend and i am smart enough to not be indoctrinated by these normalfag cultists. i just find it super curious and nothing like this has ever happened to me before. there are around 30 of them. only 6 of them appear to be active. and they are extremely brainwashed and trying to brainwash me too. very unsubtly.



>Gets indignant about being called out for being dishonest
>Dishonesty, hyperbole, and self-contradiction intensifies


>self contradiction
Oh lemme guess, you're another one who thinks the "white supremacism" is a thing because someone somewhere says "kike media." Reality doesn't work that way. Logic doesn't work that way. And I'm not even white you dolt.


sounds like a bunch of self-important autists, maybe stick around to laugh at them, you could also play along but act really stupid as to annoy them, that's what I would do, if they are actually autistic they won't notice and they'll just get really genuinely angry even if you're being completely obvious, if they actually are just normalfags then it might not work out and they'll just ignore you though, but imo worth a try if you're bored


QAnon is not politics
conspiracy theorists need to stop larping as relevant


This is a very strange attempt at practicing motte-and-bailey rhetoric, since it is being used to counter the idea that the El Paso shooter's purpose was directly related to continually flowing political news, and not that the El Paso shooter enjoyed broad demotic support or represented a large faction. It is rarely contested that the El Paso shooter himself was a white nationalist who represented fairly typical white nationalist views, nor is it often contested that white nationalists remain a fringe minority of white men. But the white nationalist perspective on current politics is directly related to the political environment. This also does not pass the reversal test of connection; if the implication that "the intentions, motives and actions of the El Paso shooting are not related to any current political news" were to be taken seriously then we would come to the conclusion that race, Mexican immigration, white displacement and hispanic occupation of border towns like El Paso are not related to any current political news, race and The Wall are not factors of discussion in the current political environment and have no relationship to the Democratic primaries that are running right now, nobody voted for Trump in the hopes that he would reverse the flow of Mexicans and nobody has any cause to feel betrayed by his unwillingness or inability to do so, and anyone who ever posted The Daily Stormer in our political discussion threads deserves to be banned for trolling because they were not actually hoping to contribute to the civil discussion of politics, but were hoping to practice blatant baiting and shitposting. Even if the argument was intended to be a matter of scale, white nationalist participation in political discourse has always been disproportionate to their numbers, given their intractability and fanaticism.
>a tiny difference in death toll
A factor of more than 2 is not tiny in terms of media attention when two superficially similar things happen at the same time. There is a reason movies stagger, delay or accelerate their release dates when they realize a surefire blockbuster will come out at the same time as their lower budget flick with vaguely similar themes and audience crossover.


The notion that the reporting of a given shooting in the media should be strictly equivalent to the death toll is pretty silly. Even if it was true, that would mean the El Paso shooter should only get twice as much coverage, which is not the case. No, the media isn't operating based on a mathematical equation, and the Dayton shooting should get considerably more coverage than it is receiving.

It's amusing that you compared it to the marketing strategy of movie studios, because this really is about selling fiction, narrative, a show. It's sad that the left today has so much faith in the corporate media, I'm pretty sure that in the past they were proponents of the idea that the mainstream media is not really interested in the truth and instead operates on interests.


I'm not even going to read this.


why do people bother to write long poasts on the chans smh.


He probably spent like 5 hours composing all that to me and I'm not even going to read it.


Imagine going out of your way to announce to everyone that you're a brainlet and don't know what you're talking about instead of just not replying at all.


Imagine thinking nobody sees your racist bias.


It's a literal fact that white supremacy is on the rise throughout the world and you're either one yourself or a dumb centrist if you think otherwise.


It's the result of disorganized resistance to white dispossession.


And that's a good thing.


File: 1565547270485-0.jpg (301.81 KB, 1200x897, 400:299, Schloss_Neuschwanstein_201….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1565547270485-1.jpg (504.67 KB, 1600x1210, 160:121, 676.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1565547270485-2.jpg (268.36 KB, 1400x1048, 175:131, 1515334892990.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

This is what white supremacy gave us:

Western Civilization
Third Reich
Leonardo da Vinci
Unparalleled Scientific Advancement
Industrial Revolution
Humans On The Moon
The Internet
Advanced Farming Techniques
Adolf Hitler
Julius Caesar
Charles Darwin And The Theory Of Evolution


All of this is for naught if you let the Jews take over. Could've just stopped at the ancient Greeks.


Jews are the disease and we are the cure.

Jews are the purveyors of chaos, while we uphold order.


File: 1565552302615.gif (1.24 MB, 380x219, 380:219, 1552175111732.gif) ImgOps iqdb

get the hell out of here you scum bag and don't come back you aren't welcome here. It's a disgrace that the mods haven't banned you nazi scum.



Want to bet this dude is some form of commie?


Being a commie isn't incompatible with wizardry. Being a fascist is you fucking dumb ass. Get the hell out of here.


>only my ideologies are compatible with my very own definition of Wizardry(tm)
>sources: dude trust me


says the commie. Only your ideological views are worth discussion and you will chase out anyone who disagrees


So in what fascist book does it say they want to keep neets alive, reclusive people alive, mentally unstable people alive, and non-white wizards alive. Built inside of the theory and historically commies have always been inclusive to these people, but both theoretically and historically fascists want to exterminate them. The definition of wizardry and the type of people wizards are is no secret if you aren't an outsider, which likely are. I'm including what wizards are, or at least should be, commonly accepted to be here. According to you wizards are only white and wageslaves, right? Fuck out of here you scum


Why don't you name a time where communism has been tried that didn't result in forced labor and heavy punishment for able-bodied people who chose not to work.

Any colective based ideology is inherently unwizardly, especially communism. Fuck that shit. I will take individual liberty and property rights so I can be left the fuck alone by evil little shits like you and if you try to enter my property to steal my shit I can just shoot your looter ass dead.

Littrally worse then the neo-nazi retards. To hell with all of you.


Communism always leads to literal slavery and mass death of "undesirables" so you can fuck off with your bullshit.


>statistics say that most young people are virgins
the statistics say that like 20 to 40 % of unmarried people in their 20s are virgins. That's not even close to being most.

Being a neet, recluse or mentally unstable and living a comfortable life is only a possibility in a stable homogeneous white or east-Asian country, try being a neet, recluse or retard in Africa.

And as for communism, either you are going to be forced to work in a "labor" camp (slave camp) or they are just going to starve you or put you against the wall with all the other dissidents.


File: 1565554898921.png (5.25 KB, 170x170, 1:1, freedomflag.png) ImgOps iqdb

Communism is moneyless, stateless, and classless (no private property) and has never existed in modern society. What you're referring to is state capitalism, marxist leninism with the end goal of achieving communism, which it never achieved. The people became the wageslaves to the state instead of capitalists. I don't advocate for that type of socialism and there are many schools of socialism, I'm an anarchist which is based on free association, and many of us would allow a minority non-worker group such as neets, at least more so than any capitalist society would.

also, I'm not sure if you're the fascists above or liberals and I don't feel like defening my political alignment, which I'm sure you only know a capitalist propagandized version of and have never read any serious socialist theory or labor history. If you're liberals though then I'm not telling you to leave wizchan since they can potentially allow wizards to live and sometimes even give out neetbux in liberal societies.

Although your comments and understanding of nuanced historical events and morals are poor, spreading false account of what socialism actually is, you should at least know that if it weren't for them you would likely be a child laborer, never have neetbux, and work 16 hour days.


>Man this thread is more retarded than usual. Hiding.

Right wingers aren't known for their critical thinking, knowledge of history or fundamental human qualities such as compassion, qualities that most would agree should be in any decent society.

They are known for their bigotry, psuedo-science, might is right rhetoric, and shilling for an elite class of people that resent them, that enslave them, and that they will never be a part of.

Moreover, it's up to them to explain why we should allow their ideology on wizchan with the overwhelming evidence that it's against everything wizchan should stand for.



>fundamental human qualities such as compassion

Your idea of compassion is letting low IQ populations out breed high IQ populations, ultimately leading to chaos, unstable societies and the collapse of civilization. You think the 4.2 billion Africans at the end of the 21st century have the same amount of value as European or East-Asian populations, which is obviously not true.

Eugenics must triumph over dysgenics, order must triumph over chaos, Europeans must triumph over lesser undesirable races.

>They are known for their bigotry, psuedo-science

All buzzwords that have no meaning.


What elite class? The Jewish elite class in America that has a complete monopoly over the media, funds over 50% of the Democratic party, funds 30% of the GOP, has a foreign lobby group (AIPAC) that has key speakers from both parties including the President of the United States? The only bipartisan bill that has been passed recently has been on increasing aid to Israel. There has also been an unanimous condemnation of antisemitism from both parties, which has never been done for any other racial group.

How exactly are we shilling for the elite class, when the elite class propagates and funds open borders, the flooding of white nations with non-whites, all for white dispossession and cheap labor. Immigration suppresses wages, dispossesses and alienates native European populations, creates an unstable dynamic of racial and cultural conflict, overwhelming of public infrastructure and housing shortages.

The idea that the current establishment is on the side of Europeans in any way is absurd.


The ideas of equality and egalitarianism can only exist under heavy censorship, intimidation, 'moral' superiority and the negation of controversial truths.


If communism has never existed, how do you know it can exist? Seems like a utopian fantasy to me, one that the elite uses to manipulate people like you.


This is dumb… lol So 3000 years ago capitalism never existed so it should be a utopian fantasy too right? Govermnents didn't exist 30,000 years ago, so I guess those should be utopian too according to your logic.

Want to reply to the dumb ass fascist above but I'm too lazy. If you are reading this mods, please see the meta thread about them and respond. I reported several times.


There wasn't organized political movements attempting to implement those things back then, were there? Assuming your claims about their non-existence are even correct, I'd guess that they involve a great deal of pedantry.
I haven't seen a single feasible method for implementing communism, and that's why I said that it's unrealistic and utopian. If you're going to have a classless society where people can't sell goods that they've produced, what are you going to do when someone starts to gather acclaim due to natural ability? What are you going to do when someone decides that they want to sell the products of their labor?


And so because there weren't any attempts to bring them to existence does that make them a utopian fantasy? Because that was the logic you seemed to be using. And you're in dire need for a history lesson if you think states and capitalism existed back then, not that I'm surprised you don't know history or even learn what a government or the current economic system currently is. Maybe you can call it utopian for being extremely hard to implement, I'm not arguing that, after all the powers of capital have concentrated to levels never before seen in history and are only growing stronger, and the methods to achieve any form of socialism is greatly contested even among leftists themselves and needs to be seriously looked at and contemplated. The entrenched and overarching structures of capitalism took 300 years to build, and the propertarian system from which its an extension of, 6000 years. Dissolving it requires strategies bigger and longer in scale than anything that is easily conceived or understood by an individual without many years of dedication, and will likely take decades to unfold. You don't go into a boxing match against a pro boxer and expect to win without preparation, so socialists regularly study and update their theory when it comes to methods for revolution, basing our alternatives and solutions for realistic problems that have occurred in realistic answers that have been implemented, even if swiftly crushed by capitalists. So we are at least practical utopians (if utopian at all).

Also communism has nothing to do with not allowing trade. You can trade in communism. When socialists say class we mean how you earn your money in the production process, either you earn money from the social construct of property rights (the capitalist), or you earn your living from labor as a wage slave. The questions you ask are common ones but if you want a good answer and not some short incomplete answer (don't feel like typing too much atm), then I can link you to an faq that has answers to them if you're interested.


File: 1565562407637.gif (308.14 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1549731722595.gif) ImgOps iqdb

>Jeffrey Epstein's cell was not regularly monitored the night he is believed to have killed himself, a source with knowledge of the accused sex trafficker's time at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York said Sunday.

>Epstein, 66, was in the special housing unit in a cell by himself when he was found dead early Saturday. He initially had a cellmate, but that person was removed for reasons unknown, the source said.



Capitalism and government are not utopian because there are clear realistic steps for how they can exist in reality. This is evidenced by the fact that they actually exist. I can see no such steps for implementing communism. Your post hasn't changed that.

>the social construct of property rights

And here you go calling things "social constructs" as if that makes them less real. The entire concept of rights is a social construct, in that it arises from social interaction between individuals.
Do you or do you not have right of ownership over your own body?
Do you or do you not have right of ownership over the products of your own body?
If the answer to both of these is yes, there is no reason why the consensual transfer of alienable property rights can be thought of as fundamentally unjust.


Getting tired of responding, maybe I will come back some other day, but most people or at least a lot consider property rights as sacred while socialists, for a lot of reasons, consider them unjust. If we accept property rights then we have to take away rights from all the dispossessed that don't own property and so become the wageslaves of those that do to live. You can make your own arguments defending that, but the facts are that most people do not own property, so most people have to sell their liberty to live to the people that do, and this is unjust. the idea of socialism exists in principle and has, at least shortly before being invaded by outside capitalist forces, existed in reality. There are even germs of it under capitalism existing in forms of cooperatives and, in some cases, poor countries without the state enforcement. Primitive communism is how people lived for most of human history, not that we are primitivists. So again, there is no reason to believe its impossible, but there is a desire need of critical thought in how to implement a succesful revolution and organize it to defend against attacks from capital, this is what splits the left. Not responding anymore…


It is, being forced to work blows too.


Your argument uses pure consequentialist ethics, which isn't based in logic. Consequentialism isn't based in logic because the function of ethics is to determine the value of actions, not of results. Determining the value of results falls under pragmatism. If you are determining the ethical value of an action you should look at the intrinsic truths of the action itself, not what might be allowed to happen if the action is deemed ethical.

And yes, some very small organizations may have engaged in communism as you define it, but that is only because such situations are completely voluntary. Communes have the potential to work on the micro scale because all the members have agreed to the rules beforehand. I am all for voluntaryism, by the way; but I can't see how this type of communism would work on the larger scale.
By the way, why haven't you joined a voluntary commune yet? If you have there wouldn't be any reason for you to get angry about how other people choose to live, would there?



I would first clarify what wizard is, to me that would simply be living in relative seclusion and following your own interests, this may involve work it may not.
So then out of Communism and Fascism what ideology would better support this? Well both will not be kind to you if you do not work so being a NEET wizard is out in both systems. So then really you must have a job so it depends on what your interests are, however NAZI Germany was famous for it's occult interests and it also did a lot of research into archaeology, anthropology and other fields, so I would say that Nazi Germany would benefit more stereotypical wizardry interests.


Not just a commie, he's either an outsider from some groid site like reddit or a bitter non-white crab (or both)


Actually I would add to this. Nazi Germany still had private wealth and land so it actually would be possible to be a NEET Wizard if you were an aristocrat or a man of wealth.


Note what was actually said.
Any time communism is attempted it leads to total disaster. This is absolutely undeniable.
You also are using the bullshit tactic of calling littrally everything you dislike capitalism in order to dilute the meaning of the word to the point of it not meaning anything.
Then you devolve into non-argument.
Communism as a ideal is total garbage on every level. It's premises aren't correct. It isn't based in reason, nor is the logic of it sound, and the economic philosophy isn't objective.
Even full on military junta's are functional better than anything related to communism. There is no worse system I can think of then communism.

Honestly starting to see why people are getting tired of commie bullshit and want to just offer them free helicopter rides. It is like trying to explain to a pedo the rational reasons they can't go around raping kid, and they just aren't getting it because they don't want to get it. They just want the end goal of their dick in a little kid and don't think about anything else. With commies it's worse. Only instead of being blinded by the end goal of lustful pleasure they just want to how the power to steal and leach from productive people. With a pedo only a few kids are hurt if he has his way. With the commie millions die, nearly everyone suffers, and the country it is tried dies a slow death.

I wish more commies would actually try their shitty ideas on the small scale amongst themselves on a comune so they can learn first hand how bullshit communism actually is before preaching it.


> leach from productive people.

You claim you are against Communism because it is anti-NEET, but then you claim that commies are driven by lust for the NEET life and that's bad.

"Leach from productive people" is all anti-NEETs peoples definition of NEET


Communism is pretty cool if you don't look on them as humans by a real time strategy game.

By rights if you read Hayek and Mises, Communism should be literally impossible. But it "worked" in the limited sense of having high GDP growth during some years, and muddling along through the 70s, and some acheivements like WW2 and the space race.

Its like using a Rube Goldberg machine to build cars. The miracle isn't that the cars are shoddy, but that cars come out of the machine at all.

Even running a bad economy under communism is amazing, when you think in a pre-computer age, they had to do everything an industrial economy does, every sale and purchase in a nation of millions, with paper and pencil.

Like if you take what Hayek said literally, then you shouldn't be saying "see I told you so", but "wow running a whole economy by paper and pencil is a lot more successful than I would have thought possible"


My dad was born in 1954 (yes he about 66 years old) so he was an adult around the very late 60's early 70's and yes 16 was quite adult back then.

He's told me plenty of how much better it was and he was half native half white.
He still tells me today he can't believe the amount of degenerate bullshit is happening today in this country like he's never seen before.
He tells me all the time that biblical shit is coming true and what not though I'm not that religious I hear the way he talks and it's as if someone is trying to warn me of the end of the world and honestly why wouldn't I believe him.

Most of this about "America is loved around the world" and "no feminism" is a bit of a stretch and should probably be clarified as "no rainbow colored fascists shouting at random white people to kill themselves on college campuses" but most of this is pretty true.

We need another civil war and fast honestly, I feel like it'd clear a lot of things up.


Murder and theft are wrong dipshit.
Murdering millions of people to steal what they left behind isn't being a neet you fucking retard, it is being a monsterous thug.
Go ahead and try to argue how putting a bullet in the head of people who don't fall in line with the majority and taking their stuff is wizardly.
Go ahead you dishonest scumbag. Do it.


To all those replying to how bad communism is, I will defend it later but am too tired right now. Maybe in a few days check back and I may muster the energy and will power to respond to your bullshit claims. Though in the meantime if you want to get an idea of what we want, here is an article to give you an idea, about abolishing wage labor : https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolition-of-work


All societies are bloody in its formation.

If we compare mature capitalism and mature communism of the 1970s, yes capitalism does do many things better. And appeals to a different type of personality, the striver and entrepeneur who wants more out of life. And for that type of person, 1970s East Germany would be hell.

But for a different type of personality, the boring grey life of not working hard, but not making much, is appealing.

Rather than going to the extremes of capitalism and communism at their worse and most violent. I think a more rational way to compare them in their maturity, is the high-risk high-reward life vs the low-risk low-reward life. And either system can be comfortable for those who fit the right personality type and hell for those who don't.

If you read memoirs from the 1970s Eastern Bloc, the problem is not that they will be murdered, but that they will be bored and ambitionless.


>B-b-but what about
No, they aren't even remotely comparable. Go fuck yourself with a shotgun. Doing apologetics for evil philosophy. Again worse then the dumbass neo-nazi.
The very foundations of Marxist philosophy is inherently unethical and collectivism is inherently unwizardly.


Most of the USSR's "achievements" were done with US aid (specially WW2)



No need to be so hostile. I'm not saying Soviet socialism was perfect at any time period. And I'm not dwelling on the crimes of capitalism. It was very bloody and harsh in its first few hundred years.

But I think the fair comparison would not be philosophy or history, but an equal comparison of the Soviet and capitalist worlds circa 1975. And admittedly there are plenty of things the capitalist world did better.

Just for those who like a more lazy, safe less ambitious life, the Soviet system at its peak could suit certain personality types better.

I don't think theres any point about ranting about good and evil and philosophy and neonazis and shotguns. Its just for different personality types. A lot of people, maybe the majority would prefer the higher risks and insecurity for the sake of a higher reward. The Soviet system is better suited to the low risk low reward unambitious type.


Look at Chris "Fredo" Cuomo going off because he was called Fredo, threatening to assault someone over it. Doubt anything will happen to him, but just imagine if it was Tucker Carlson threatening someone like that after being called the "WS-word", the Left would be in a crusade to get him fired and deplatformed and would probably be able to.


Why 1975? Because it's the one moment in soviet history that you think is redeemable? That's not a good defense of a system, you know. Stability is an important thing. People tend to live for more than a few years, so it's not a good thing to advocate for a system that might be good for a few years but tends to self destruct.



Not really, there were plenty of easy jobs in the west too.


A lot of senior citizens in the Bloc have nostalgia for the Brezhnev years. Its a secure job, you don't get paid much, but you don't work hard.


You would be a long way towards achieving the goals of socialism, within the framework of capitalism, by combining together the best statist economic features of nations that have historically been considered capitalistic.

The French planning dirigisme

The West German works councils co-management

The Swedish welfare state

Norwegian state oil industry

The East Asian developmental state

British nationalization and NHS

The USA military-research complex

These are all historically capitalist NATO countries, but if you combined all these features in a single economy it would be a lot of statism.


When folks mention the successes of these models, critics will respond that these are all examples of capitalism not socialism.

If this is capitalism, then I support capitalism. A capitalism with 90% union membership, a state oil industry, welfare, free education and college, government planning and worker voting rights on the corporate board.

They say that none of this counts as socialism when they do it overseas. But if you wanted to do all this in the USA, you'd be to the left of Bernie Sanders.


Because all the people the commies genocided are dead. Most the senior citizens hated the commies and consider it an awful thing. The few who miss it were in the elite circles who got everything handed to them and then ended up back where they belong on the food chain.

You do realize the majority of those things are failing and collapsing right? Socialism doesn't work and the NHS is proof of it. Do some goddamn research on the bullshit you spew. But if you did research you wouldn't think socialism is a good idea.

Unions are cancerous as fuck. Welfare does nothing but destroy the working class and make it harder for families to afford more children. Free "education" just means communist brain washing and doesn't teach anything of value once a child has learned to read and write. Home education through the internet where the parent has a choice of educational systems to use is a much better system. Workers should not have any voting rights at all. You don't ask the clowns how to manage the bank account of the circus. Their job is to be good at their job, they don't and won't understand larger economic issues or business in general. And you make them worse at their job by making them spend time worrying and stressing over things they have no need to be involved in. Let a man work and let the leader be the leader. Too many cooks spoil the broth is a saying for a reason.


"Socialism" is a spook


If you redefine "socialism" like that, then every member of NATO was socialist, and the Cold War was just a socialist civil war


>No need to be so hostile.
I disagree.
With a ideology as vile as socialism/communism there is no comparison.


>The USA military-research complex
You mean the complex where they straight up steal tech from privately funded labs if the military thinks they can use it?
Or do you mean the use of "public" funds to bankroll private companies to do the research and prototyping, then they ship it off to the military to field test because of laws against the private testing of certain kinds of military hardware without governmental involvement.
Military R&D could be done totally privately, and in fact would be more efficient if they didn't have to deal with the government getting in the way. Governmental involvement is their way of exerting control, and your dumbass confuses them butting in to maintain control for them actually being necessary when they are very clearly not.

I will say it again. The USA military-research complex actually gets in the way of R&D and could fully be done privately. The ONLY reason it isn't fully private is because the state doesn't allow it to be for their own power and control reasons.


Did you only just realize that's exactly what the cold war is? Jewish lead USA with socialism leaning towards communism VS Jewish lead USSR with communism. Both worked together to destroy the Axis forces in WW2 and then proceeded to have a "civil war" over the spoils when they were the only super powers left standing.

During WW2 the US media was extremely positive towards the USSR. It approved of it greatly and would black list any one who tried to oppose it. Remember the communist witch hunts where people found communist spies and called them out, but now get known as a bad thing for it?

This is the problem with socialists and communists, neither of them live in the real world. They don't read about these things in action and see how they turned out. They're pop culture political and skim the surface and that's it. Unions have been incredibly destructive to most workers. Socialism creates a tar pit that makes it extremely difficult for families to have enough income to have many children while letting lazy people ask for more hands out for single mothers refusing to control themselves. Socialism gives you just enough money to survive but tells you if you attempt to pull yourself out of it then they will cut you off completely the moment you reach 50% of what they give you. So you can either sit in the tar pit or you can risk starving to escape it (since you can't get much in the way of savings).

Even if they just read people's experience with communism in reality they would immediately oppose it based on common sense. Communes and hippy groups have tried to do leaderless groups before. What always happens is 1 person comes forward who is clearly the leader and directs everything and everyone else just follows them. That's how humans work, it's the natural order of things and even when people try the opposite it's still true. If you want a modern example where resources are infinite (which Communism will never have) try Valve. Company that's supposed to have zero leaders, just people working their jobs. Turns into a huge clique fest with very obvious leaders but because you're peer reviewed by other workers you have to hide under the wing of one of these alphas or expect to be kicked out very quickly. No work gets done, company stagnates and goes from being one of the best in the world to a joke held afloat by leeching off of others hard work (steam). There's some ex employees stories out there, like 10 pages long stories of how awful these places are and how the entire thing is a lie.

But hey, I want my tendies and my video games so fuck reality. Just keep giving me those. Nothing bad will ever happen to me.

Allowing entirely independent research is an extremely bad idea for any one in power. If they invent the next super weapon (lets say the Nuke 2.0) how do you expect to get it? You become at their mercy. You don't want them selling Nuke 2.0 to your enemies and you can't force their hand if they have a super weapon able to blow up a couple of cities. Even if all they invent is drones for you to use, what happens when you do something they disagree with and they say we're not selling to you any more? You attack them and they leak all your drone security codes to the world and you just lost trillions of hardware because any kid with a smart phone can deactivate it.


>Unions are cancerous as fuck.


>Allowing entirely independent research is an extremely bad idea for any one in power.
Money. You do realize that private arms manufactuars are a thing and they are driven by the profit motive just like any other private buiness right? They even already do R&D on their own without problems. It is just that certain parts of the industry are controlled by the govemnent in ways that artificially limit the market, and other times the government will just straight up steal shit in the R&D phase and sit on it for decades so that no one else can have it.
Not because some comic book spy fiction bullshit about some evil private corp creating a super weapon and holding the world hostage or some other absurd fiction.
You buy from the dozens of other companies that currently sell military drones and move on. Markets, how do they work?

>You attack them and they leak all your drone security codes to the world

Wait, are you saying that a company would sudoku its self in a act of total self sabotage because they had a contract dispute with a customer? That would be retarded, but sure. Lets say they did that. All it would take is a software patch to secure the hardware again. Which honestly isn't that hard or expensive to develop. It is what the US did when the security for the F-35 fighter jet was cracked by China. From what I read it took just days to patch out the security breach once they found out.


I dont think we should talk about ideologies, philosophies, ethics, ideals but about historical societies.

We should talk about the 1970s Eastern Bloc. That is socialism at its most developed before its collapse.

It was terrible for ambitious go-getters, but it was good for people who just want a boring easy life of not working hard.

Many Soviets and East Germans miss the stability side of it now that its gone.

Also for those who say communism was bad for NEETs, here is post-Czech normies complaining it coddled NEETs and bears too much



The same way classical liberals dont like a King pushing everyone around without any checks and balances, that is what the union is in the workplace.

If anyone needs some protection and not depending on just being friends with the boss, its wizardly types.

I'm not saying the workplace needs to be a full democracy like socialists and anarchists want. But it should at least be a constituional monarchy with an elected parliament to the check the Boss King and thats what unions are.

Most US states are at-will which means you can be fired for any reason except race or sex. I don't see any protections for being a virgin.

We can't just depend on the Boss or King being a nice guy, there needs to be rule of law and checks and balances, both in the state and workplace.


Maybe you should actually watch the video reddit guy.
You might learn something instead of making a fool of yourself with your lack of understanding of the subject.
That or go back to the commie echochamber you obviously came from.


At-will also means that you can leave at any time with no consequences. At-will employment is very different from externally imposed coercive government.
No, that's not what unions are. Like the other guy said, watch the video. Unions cause much more harm to workers than employers do.
>We can't just depend on the Boss or King being a nice guy
You depend on him being a non-retarded guy. If a boss acts like an unreasonable tyrant in a free market, he'll need to pay much more money to his employees to get them to stay and not go to other, non-retarded employers who understand that it makes financial sense to not abuse their employees.


So anyone have thoughts about Hong Kong about to fall to the full brutality of the Communist Mainland?


File: 1565769558694.jpg (42.94 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, ancom.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>consequentialism, pragmatism

I don't study philosophy and don't want to learn what these are right now, but I can give you realistic steps that have been taken in the past towards revolution, within a socialist system that was working completely fine on it's own, and only failed due to outside military forces. As well as large scale examples that exist today. Not for communism, but for market socialist firms.

If you look at the Zapatista's in mexico, they are operating as an autonomous collective with self govermnent, direct democracy, and self managment on their land in opposition to the state of Mexico. This is libertarian socialism in action. In spain the largest Cooperative in the world with about 74,000 people are employed and beating the capitalist ran firms. In fact it's already been proven that cooperatives are more productive at producing than capitalist firms, and just a quick google search shows that in this random study I found on cooperative wood companies vs capitalist wood companies : https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf , and I don't feel like going into details as to why, but this is evidence that people can work cooperatively with each other on a large scale without a boss telling them what to do. There is much more evidence to prove this (I will show if you want but am lazy to find it right now).

While a cooperative is not enough to call an entire social system socialist, they are the germs of what a socialist societies productive units would make up. Revolutionary catalonia Is the best example of socialism working in action and when the worksites were in control of the workers, despite being attacked by fascists and Leninist's, there is plenty of evidence that shows that they were more productive and efficient than the previous capitalist firms were. Catalonia was a succesful example of socialism in action, although it only lasted shortly, the system itself worked better than capitalism.

>I can't see how communism can work on a large scale

This is answer to this can't be put to rest in a single post on here, entire books have been written on frameworks for a free society, and no one can tell the future but we have very strong idea's of what it might look like. Also, keep in mind that it's impossible to achieve communism immediately after the revolution, but it is a goal for most socialists (not all socialists are communist, but most are) and so we may see some form of mutualism or collectivist socialism. I'm talking about libertarian socialism here since I'm a an anarchist, marxist leninist's, as you know use states to get there and fail (see ussr/china/cuba) although they are more succesful than capitalist countries given the context of the conditions they are in. In addition, the future society won't only be decided by people writing books or a minority of politically interested people, but by all people and shaped by their actual needs in struggling against oppression. All we can do is push people towards communism and convince them that it's a better way of life.

Actually this would be too long to type out, I'll just refer you to some videos and a big FAQ on potential frameworks for a free society - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzEl5RIMp7M this guy has a video series, this is just the first part and here https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-10-17 is much more in depth explanation of what it might look like, with examples from it in action at the end using Catalonia. There is also a growing cooperative movement in Argentina and Venezuela by the way.

>why haven't I joined a voluntary commune, angry on how other people choose to live

Maybe if it were a realistic option I would, but that wouldn't mean I live under socialism and they have been tried before and failed. It's doomed to fail because such small scale haven's can't exist in isolation in a world dominated by capital (see here on utopian socialism) https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm

Who actively chooses to live under capitalism? Many disagree with capitalism in principle, but they still follow bourgeosie rules because they don't have the military force to fight them. No one voluntary becomes a wageslave, but they only do so because they don't want to die in the streets, and homeless people don't voluntarily sleep on the streets when we have empty homes, but have to because otherwise the police protecting the bourgeosie's property rights will arrest them for trespassing. This is not a free society, the state has a monopoly on violence to enforce rules that, as regularly shows in history books, harms people and serves the interests of the capitalist class.


Communism would. I'm not talking about the colloquial and incorrect meaning of the word that has been propped up by propaganda of the usa and ussr, but the political sophisticated, theoretically correct usage of the term (meaning classless, stateless, moneyless). This is because land is socialized (not same as nationalized, but meaning belongs to the people not a government) and there is no private property, instead communist's recognize use rights. Use rights means that you own as much as you can use on your own. So if you want to live alone in the forest as a hermit, inhabit an area, you will have use rights on that land that you use. Under fascism (which is really just another form of capitalism), it's probably the same deal you see now, maybe more dangerous. They'll do to you what they did to the Maine hermit guy and put you in a death camp with the other minorities.

Yet, you may actually be more likely to be a neet in a communist society given that free people aren't likely to cast of mentally ill people to fend for themselves. If they must have you work, it will be self managed liberating work, not wageslavery, and it would not be 40/hours a week, much less as the goal of a socialist economy is to serve human needs with the least human energy. This would all be decided in your particular commune, but again you'll probably have much better chances to be neet in communism. Here is an article about how much we hate work to prove it: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolition-of-work .

Video is related.


I think if they wanna roll tanks on those fifth columnists it's none of our business. I think after how much amurika and the rest of the kike shithole "west" treat their protesters and invalidate popular votes they don't like and destroy whole countries whose elected leaders they don't like they can just FUCK OFF AND DIE with their fake concern about "democracy" in hong kong.


Most wizards are working class and poor. Why do you think being a neet under communism is impossible?


>any time commie is attempted it leads to disaster

It would be more correct to say socialist revolution. The conditions to implement communism immediately after a revolution is completely utopian and no serious socialist believes this is possible. There will be an intermediary period with the ultimate goal of communism. And >>224265 here I've indicated large scale real working examples of libertarian socialism (though the state socialism in ussr and china and cuba is incredibly succesful too although I don't want that). The systems work fine on their own but they often fail, not because of the system itself, but because of outside capitalist military forces. There needs to be critical examination of how to fight off military threats from the capitalists, but the economic system itself is fine. If a capitalist nation is defeated by a more powerful capitalist country in way, does this prove that capitalism doesn't work or is it only a matter of military forces?

>everything I dislike is capitalism

So you don't consider fascism to be capitalism? What do you think capitalism is and what economic system do you believe capitalism is then? Me calling it capitalism isn't diluting the meaning of the word, but only indicating that the core aspects of the economy are all features accepted as capitalistic by economists. That is, private property, wage slavery and slavery, and a govermennt to back up those property rights.

>communism is ideal, premises aren't correct, not based on reason, no sound logic, and not objective

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Can you enumerate specifically what is wrong with it so I can properly respond.

>I wish more commies would try their shit themselves

…This has been tried and failed because no small commune can exist in isolation from the whole economy that is interdependant on each other. This is called utopian socialism and there are multitudes of writings on why this doesn't work. If it were possible then we would have tried it long ago. Positively, as I have shown in my other post there is already plenty of evidence that it already does work as it was done in Catalonia.

Video is related about all the capitalists military interventions and imperialist insurgencies on socialist revolutions.


Hayek and Mises… They have been completely refuted by socialists for a long time, but I bet you don't read marxist economics… I'll just link you to a page refuting the common arguments that the capitalist apologists (mises/hayek) have used against us socialists since you didn't give me anything specific to respond to, maybe you can learn something and find something we disagree with. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-04-17

Video is related on debunking capitalist economics


>murder and theft
When slaves revolt against their masters most decent people would consider it an act of liberation, unless you are a bootlicker that worships the status qou and those in power. I'm not a state socialist and don't advocate for the ussr, but if you mean to say that any socialist revolution is going to be without blood and the bourgeosie will simply give up their privileged positions they you are deluded and blind.
>people who don't fall in line with the majority
So then they should just resign to a minority of elites ruling over their entire lives and never question the legitimacy of this way of living. This is the thinking of a sheep and exactly how the powerful want you to be, a dumb slave in chains serving them.
Although in libertarian socialists societies, if you truly wanted to live in a state then you wouldn't be forced to live in a free society, you can always go to the woods and find people to oppress there.

>most ussr's achievements are actually usa's

Socialism is not when the govermnent does things, it's a specific wide scale mode of economic production in which the labors directly control how they work. It's often confused by capitalists that have never read any socialist literature that there can be a combination of the two systems, but this is impossible and extremely unlikely if it were to happen (say like 80 percent of an economy is cooperatives and the rest totalitarian capitalist firms), because it would be like allowing actual slaves in a free society. What you're referring to is called social democracy, and I think Adam Smith advocated for this type of capitalism and its been proven to be the most effect type of capitalism for most people, although still with the inefficiency and contraditions of capitalist economy.

Video I embeded is related and also see this video on why social democracy can't fix capitalism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odYUSTtHfGc


File: 1565774335041.jpg (136.96 KB, 1125x886, 1125:886, g2swzjlzg7w21.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Yeah as I've explained there are many different schools of socialism and the ones that probably said those are socialist or socialist like are most likely marxists or democratic socialists. I don't like them since they are statist and I'm anarchist, they often turn into reformist liberals betraying the revolution, and as I said in my previous post socialism is not when the government does stuff. In my libertarian socialism there is no government, but laws are made through direct democracy. So, you see there are many schools of socialism, but have different methods and theories very far apart from each other.

>most senior citizens hate ussr and few who miss it are in elite circle
source? See my image. Not to mention, the ussr went to complete shit when it turned to capitalist. I don't like defending the ussr since I'm not a state socialist but these lies from the cold war need to be dispelled about the ussr.

>You do realize the majority of those things are failing and collapsing right
Again, I'm an anarchist (not social democrat) and don't want to do an in depth look on why they are collapsing, but I bet it has to do with de-funding of them by the rising right wing parties in power now due to capialism being a fundamentally broken system meant to centralize wealth, showing that liberal reforms such as above can't bandage a broken system forever, and the populist right takes advantage on this by scapegoating minorities or using neoliberal economic lies (which have already been proved to not work as seen in chile and austerity in europe/usa ect).

>unions are cancerous

You must believe in austrian economics, right?… I made a post above about that if you want to check it out. Anyway where is you source that unions are bad? Even just a cursory search on their effectiveness contradicts this statement. https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/

All the countries with the highest paid workers, most worker rights, have very strong union representation. When unions were killed in the usa with taft/hartley is when wages stopped rising with productivity because workers had no mean of collectively bargaining for a higher wage. Anyway you made a lot of claims here that I can completely disprove, but am too lazy to do so right now, may do it later.


File: 1565775060878.png (1.5 MB, 763x990, 763:990, Pyramid_of_Capitalist_Syst….png) ImgOps iqdb

I think I saw a post in here about how capitalism is somehow voluntary in here earlier but I can't find it, and communism is involuntary. For who and on what terms? Under capitalism me being a wageslave is as voluntary as you putting a gun to my head and telling me I have a choice. No one wants to willingly sell their liberty and rent themselves to someone to live, but we have to because of state enforced private property rights. Communism is based on free associated labor and self management (workplace direct democracy), so it's much more voluntary in terms of the collective interest of those involved with your work, while capitalism is just like small scale totalitarianism, the only free person being the capitalist.

Explain how capitalism is voluntary, the slaves in wageslave general would be interested to find this out.


Someone said commies are brainwashed by jews. Firstly, capitalists are more than jews but can be any ethnicity, the capitalists run govermnent, education, and the media and constantly demonize socialism. A testament to this is just how misinformed what all of you believe socialism to be. The usa and the ussr were the two biggest propaganda machines and they succesfully managed to pass a false account of what socialism actually is to most people which still lingers on today. Most of you probably have never heard of anarchism, the other major school of socialism besides marxism, and despite all of this you go undisterbed thinking we are brainwashed while all the evidence shows how the bourgeosie capitalist class are controlling you to believe this. It's rational for them to pass these views onto you, because if a revolution happens they lose their heads and wealth, its an economic system for workers, not capitalist parasites. Noam Chomsky had a lot to say about this in his book Manafacturing Consent and in other books he wrote. Video related.


Where do you find the energy to post? What is your mission in this thread and on this chan in general? Why does age old politic theory crafting that has already been discussed to death interest you?

I'm basically wondering why you are blowing up this thread so hard.


dude I just whipped this up as fast as I can and I'm half asleep/drunk right now I don't have any energy. It would be helpful if I could stop being wizards from being apologists for a system that oppresses, dominates, and enslaves them though. Seeing apoligists for capital is as bad as seeing r9k tfw no gf posts. The wageslave general is the most popular thread on dep and yet they are brainwashed that this is the only way to organize society, when it has already been proven that alternative more human systems exist but they don't know it. If they learn then maybe they can potentially help make a free society possible, since its not inevitable.

vid related


File: 1565777439361.jpg (26.68 KB, 690x388, 345:194, EB7C7mUXkAAurz-.jpg) ImgOps iqdb


More like Chinese future.


You don't get a choice in either society, you work or stave(although most modern capitalists states have welfare). I guess work or die is technically a choice though.


I know work is a part of life, but how you work with other people is not voluntary under capitalism. If it were then no one would agree to sell their liberty just to get a job. In a communist society you wouldn't have to be the slave to someone as workplaces are self managed democracies, there is social equality. Do you get a choice to become a wageslave or become a freely associated partner under capital? You don't have a choice but to become a wageslave, unless you're rich to buy property and exploit people yourself.


>you probably never heard of anarchism
Imagine being this condescending. I'm pretty sure everyone here over 16 has witnessed countless "not real socialism" arguments. I really think most socialists are trapped into a pit of magical words and false concepts made to confuse people while giving them the false impression of clarity and objectivity.


File: 1565780492066.jpg (37.1 KB, 455x426, 455:426, 1459546258647.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

I'm sorry but a "free society" just doesn't align with human nature or the planet we live on. In order for us as a species to live in some "Star Trek" fantasy world where everything is free and scarcity no longer exists as a concept it would require fusion generators to be working optimally, fictional levels of alchemy being performed by scientists and an advanced AI with no malicious human intent programmed into it to keep everything organized from generation to generation.

Until we have reached a point where we have mastered our universe so we no longer need to struggle in order to survive the idea that humans have the capability to live in the utopian fashion you seem to be propagandizing is simply false.


>Most of you probably have never heard of anarchism,

No, I've heard of it. It's the stupidest thing I ever have heard of though.


I feel like copyright and porn law is going to be ramped up and up until DMCA and CISPA gets so onerous that you will only be able to post on major corporate sites. To those who say that is already the case, you are still able to post on a site like wizchan.

At that point, you will only be able to get the news from the MSM yet again.


>Why do you think being a neet under communism is impossible?
Because they littrally killed or worked to death neets under every single communist govnment to ever be attempted in the whole history of the shitty philophy.
>b-b-but it wasn't real communism
Bla bla bla, if real communism doesn't/can't exist in the real world then it is functionally useless and commies can fuck off and stop killing so many people chasing it.


I take a nap and the commie gish gallops the whole thread.
Seriously, trying to overwhelm with shear volume of bullshit doesn't make you right.


Ancoms are authoritarian irrational shitheads who hate liberty and take pleasure in violating the N.A.P.


A fuck ton of this is pure sophistry, postmodern symantic games to redefine words in order to suit a agenda and make deconstruction easier, and a complete abandonment of logic and reason.

I want my fucking time back you triple nigger. That shit was dumber then reading critical theory bullshit from feminist.


>murder and theft
>but [special pleading] and [ad hominem]
>therfor it is totally ok when I want to murder and steal
>because they have more then me and I don't think that is fair

>did I mention I only see the world in tribal collectives and refuse to acknowledge humans on a individual level

>otherwise any of the things I say would just sound insane
>so lets just ignore individuals and dehumanize everyone into blob collectives of us and them
>so that I can feel better about wanting to murder all of "them" and steal "their" stuff
>having even basic ethics is slavery

Look at the eagerness of the looter abandon humanity to justify his desire to pillage and destroy.
How he loves to lie, how he justifies his desire to slaughter, how he trembles to loot to his hearts content. No utopia will be reaped with the seeds of such ideas. Only blood and ash.

As you have abandoned reason many post ago, I see no point in trying to keep up the farce of a dialog between rational equals. You have clearly chosen the path of the irrational and unethical.
Someone who does not care about the means or the final outcome, only their temporary momentary benefit.

For people like you I hold no greater disdain, for when I see your writings I see the rationalization of great evil behind them. You do not crave a better world. You crave pure annihilation. In a way you remind me of James Taggart from Atlas Shrugged.


>Checks the source of image
>pro-commie propaganda group who have been known to make up bullshit

You can fuck right off.
Stop wasting my time with so much bullshit. I am almost sure you are doing it on intentionally now.



Under capitalism no one actually is forcing you to do anything regarding working or not. That indifference means while you are not made to work by force, there is also no obligation to take care of someone who chooses not to provide
Capitalism works under negative rights, of not infringing on others involintaraly.
Under capitalism you don't have the "right" to force people to do/provide you with anything. So if you want food, without providing value of some sort, then you are going to have to convince someone to voluntarily give you their food that they gained. If you want housing without earning it then again, you have to convince someone to voluntarily give you shelter. You don't have the "right" to force people to provide the fruits of their labor for you.
That said, if you wanted to fuck off into the woods and homestead or something and never use money, or trade, or interact with anyone, then there is nothing in capitalism that says anyone has the right to force you to do otherwise.

That is why it is voluntary. Because no one is actually putting a gun to your head to work. If you wanted under a caplitalit system to apeal to private charity, the church, your family, "friends", some commune, whatever to support you and provide for your material needs then capitalist aren't going to send the goon squad after you to force you to labor in the name of the glory of capitalism or some other ridiculousness. The greater good isn't a rational excuse to violate the individual under capitalism. So they can't force you to work, but on the flip side, you can't force them to provide for you if they don't want to.

In reality their is not us and them under free market capitalism. It is individuals who voluntarily do things for mutual benefit.


If being for strong unions and welfare is Communist, then Communists brought down the USSR, since these were the Cold War policies of NATO nations

Some of the biggest anti-commie Cold warriors were pro-Labor Democrats


All in the coolaid and don't know the flavor.
Reddit poster literally is a communist, read the thread if you don't believe me. hich is why he got called out for being being a communist.

Also pro-labor democrats didn't actually do shit. Unless you count blowing tons of hot air.



Reddit poster specifically said we don't need workplace democracy like socialism and anarchism advocates, just the constitutional monarchy of labor capitalism


Yeah, you can just choose to have no food, water, healthcare, shelter, or material things, no one is forcing you to work. (that was sarcastic)

Nothing about market economies is inherently immoral, sure, but the way they're regulated sure can be and when people talk about capitalism they're talking about a certain way of organizing those markets and society. There is no market without the government there to regulate it. Currently we have a system that has very shaky social safety nets meaning that you are forced to become a wage slave in order to get access to the things you want and need to live. Access to capital is wholly controlled by private banks and credit unions, you have to either get a loan to purchase the capital you need to start a business or sell your labor to someone who has done so already. Without access to cutting edge forms of capital, you can't compete thanks to those who do have access to that capital. The average person is left with no option other than to become a slave to one of these giant corporations because these giant corporations have increasingly monopolized control over capital and therefore control over labor.

A socialist society can have market economies but the difference is that it regulates those markets so that the average person benefits and is empowered with many choices in life. In a one factory town that whole town is dependent upon the factory for everything, instead of having that factory be owned by whoever has the money to buy it, giving him the sole right to distribute the profits of that factory however he sees fit, the factory can be owned by the people in the town and the profits shared amongst them. This is just one way of many various "socialist" ways to do things. In a capitalist system, the owner of the capital owns all the revenues and profits and can do with them as they please. They only give their workers the minimum amount needed to increase their own profits as much as possible, in fact with publicly traded companies they have a legal duty to increase the profits of the shareholders as much as possible. There is nothing about providing for the welfare of the workers, they don't give a shit about that, just making profit for the small number of wealthy people who own things for a living while others work to create the real value of everything in the economy. It's an insane system that ends up making everyone enslaved to a few rich bastards who live like kings in luxury never having to work a day in their lives and do nothing but play games of slavery with each other to see who can enslave the most people.

I imagine that if some naturalist somewhere was studying some troupe of monkeys and saw that one monkey was just sitting back on a big pile of fruit while the other monkeys worked all day to gather the fruit then at the end of the day, the king monkey distributed a few small or rotten pieces of fruit to the workers who toiled all day while eating the choicest bits for himself and his friends who just sat around with him, they would proclaim that the monkeys had all gone insane yet this is exactly the system we currently have and no one thinks to question in human society. I for one, think everyone has gone insane.


When you attempt to give the ussr a monopoly on the idea on communism which practiced marxist leninism, very distinct from the anarchist socialist school, then its easy to think that. I believe I said in my first post in this thread that I was a libertarian socialist, and to the many responding to me they used the ussr as an example in response which has nothing to do with libertarianism. I'm not watching the video, but if you can make an actual response to what I said and explain why you think I'm a kook then we can get somewhere.

>human nature argument
Anarchism is the only political theory that has given this concept deep thought and reflection. Chomsky argued :

“Individuals are certainly capable of evil … But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, they’d be running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves. Or at least give me a summary of why he thinks we believe capitalism is relevant, if it's related to your response.

“If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, we’re going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then you’ll have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing themselves.” (Chronicles of Dissent, pp. 158).

So, environment plays an important role in what 'human nature' is, and how it expresses itself. We do not assume humans are inherently 'good', but a hierarchical society will shape people in negative ways and produce a 'human nature' radically different than a libertarian one.

So your response about human nature is superficial, and ultimately an evasion, an excuse not to think. Make an argument for why the current dominating system is human nature and that there is no alternative and then we can talk.

I don't believe people are blank slates, but they all have the ability to think and learn, humans are sociable creatures, and this makes an anarchist society viable. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that capitalism and authoritarianism are denying some innate human needs. In fact, for most of the history of human existence humans lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchies. That people dismiss them as 'savage' or 'primitive' is pure arrogance.

Also it seems that capitalists make the greatest claims on human nature. Thinking people are naturally greedy and selfish. If this is true, then how does giving some people power over others lead to justice and freedom? Judging by history, giving an exception to the ruler is hopelessly utopian (assuming you're right).

>free and scarcity no longer exists blah blah

Where in my response did I say this? You're making false assumptions about a theory you know nothing about. Communism doesn't mean everyone has to stop working and everything is free and happy times…. This isn't an attempt to respond to what I actually said but just a poor crack at twisting my words to make me seem like a fool. If you aren't going to respond to me honestly then this thread is a waste of time and you can go circle jerk about capitalism.

>anarchism is dumb



>When you attempt to give the ussr a monopoly on the idea on communism
I didn't do that though.

>I'm not watching the video

Why not? You're posting videos expecting people to watch them, you most likely have watched them yourself, and you're spending hours arguing this stuff in a small imageboard, so don't tell me you don't have the time.


So you're basically arguing not against private ownership of production now but against centralization of production. And your proposed solution is not to decrease centralization but to replace the current centralized head with a centralized head that calls itself "socialist", and hope that it turns out differently.


How are you defining anarchism?
If by anarchism you mean no hierarchy, how do you address the problem that individuals are not uniform in abilities and characteristics?
If by anarchism you mean no centralized monopoly on violence, how will you prevent your anarcho-communism from turning into anarcho-capitalism when individuals decide that they want to independently own and trade the private property that they are creating?


I see you're not even bothering to read what I actually said now or maybe being intentionally ignorant. I mean, in a post above I explain that there will be a transitional period and what makes communism distinct (moneyless, no state, no class) and here you go not countering anything I actually said. Seems like most capitalists in this thread don't want to make replies to my arguments, but just go on in their little bubbles without learning anything and not making honest responses.

….alright this is too vague to really respond to you need to give more details…

>it was shit
not a coherent argument to anything he actually said but okay. I already knew you capitalists were too dumb to learn from actual economists and instead prefer prager university level teaching.

You're straw manning my argument. I'm not a primitivist. Where did I say I saw the world as tribalistic and that I don't acknowledge individuals? Seems none of the capitalists want to honestly and charitably attempt to engage with any of my arguments which shows the poverty of their moral and intellectual qualities. After seeing these trash replies, I'll not bother coming back to this thread.

If you have a source to counter it then show it otherwise you've got nothing.

>prager u
uh oh..
>no one is forcing you to work
Indirect oppression is still oppression. If all the means of life are privatized, then you have to sell your liberty to live. If you decided to work, but not sell your liberty (not obey a boss), then the police would arrest you. The whole system is built on violence of oppressing people to obey bourgeosie property rights laws. When there are empty homes and homeless people, they don't voluntarily stay on the street, but have to because otherwise they would be arrested for trespassing.

I think your entire post is evading my comment about almost all of the world already being privatized and so if most people wanted to stop and live on their own, they wouldn't be able to without fighting the government protecting the riches property rights. Your comment about fucking off in the woods is not even true, have you not heard of all the wizards that attempted this and got forced back into civilization? You reek of newfag if you don't know this.

>no one is putting a gun to your head

Again, I don't make the claim that they initially use direct violence, but that they use indirect violence through private property rights. How can you justify private property when the resources people need to live are limited, and so by owning that property you are restricting other peoples right to live unless they sell their liberty to you. What is the justification to own property? Most people are dispossessed and own nothing and most of the world is under private control.
>communes send goon squads after you if you don't work
Not true. I made posts above about how communism might work and said that there are only 'use rights' and everything is socialized. You can work in a factory and have use rights over it, but the factory belongs to the people ect. No one forces you to do anything under communism, it's truly voluntary within the democratic agreements of those involved in your work. However, long story short, you can be boycotted if you work in a factory but decide not to produce what consumers wanted and cut off from the benefits of free association (this is explained in my post above I don't feel like finding). You keep making claims about communism but it's clear you've never read anything about it…
>mutual benefit
This isn't even true because capitalism is based on hierarchy and inequality. If it were truly mutual then workers wouldn't allow managers to take the bulk of the product of their labor while they live in poverty. Seems you live in some fantasy land while in reality there are extreme differences in bargaining power between individuals and capitalist firms and that is used to exploit people regularly, there is nothing mutual about this, but more like prostitution and authoritarianism. Prostituting your labor out and be made dumb by taking orders from a master degrading your humanity.

Also the arguments for anarchy don't rely on some vague, abstract concept of society, but on individual self interest and actually takes the concept of mutual aid seriously. One of the major anarchist theorists even wrote a book on mutual aid.

It's also strange you're talking about mutual benefit, I thought capitalism was all about competition and not mutual benefit? They assume people are animals and can only compete to make society function…

video is related


no that's not my proposed solution at all. I didn't mention my proposed solution, I was only trying to use an easy to grasp example to highlight the philosophical differences between a socialist and capitalist system. A capitalist system doesn't give a shit about providing for the welfare of the people in society, it just cares about protecting the power of the capitalists. Socialist systems put the welfare of the general population as a priority. Like I said there are many different ways to do this, the ones I favor are too complex and specific to get into in any sort of format like this. Sorry if you were confused but honestly it seems like you're intentionally trying to misinterpret what I was saying to make it the stupidest thing you possibly can.


the book about mutual aid is "mutual aid- peter kropotkin'. Forgot to link it. Any quick google search of it should give the full text for free though.


So you have the time to write out pages of gish-gallop but you can't put into words the amazing plan that will transfer us to communist utopia without having to use centralization or government? Or are you afraid to put it into words because it'll just be something like "murder everyone who owns stuff and distribute it all and then we'll have utopia"?


The thing is:

Politics are ultimately nothing more than a manifestation of the people. The same greedy, superficial, succubi-worshiping, lying, backstabbers, who see you as what you look like and nothing more, are the people who make up human politics. Everything else is delusion and cope. You can only control the greed or empower it, but the greedy and superficial will break all your rules and make their own that they only enforce on you. There's a reason for the idea of a "benevolent dictator."


anarchism is about finding authority, seeing if they are just, and dismantle them if they aren't in favor of an egalitarian alternative. We all oppose states and capitalism.

>people are different

only capitalism expects people to act the same, you can see this by how you're expected to act and work and conform to authority. An anarchist society will have radically different institutions and methods of raising people to prevent more authoritarian personalities though. Don't feel like going into detail but if you want I can refer you to a writing on potential methods to do this. In fact, you can see in the Kibbutz in israel how raising people differently produces different characters in humans.

>how to prevent states

How do you prevent kings from forming under capitalism and feudal societies from forming? Most people have an interest in maintaining their current society if its shown to be better than the previous one.

It's true though that you won't be forced to live under anarchy, and if you find a group of people willing to be oppressed then you're free to seperate yourself from the autonomous confederation of free peoples and form a state, but I doubt people that understand the history and outcomes of states would agree to this. You don't find people wanting to go back to the days of kings and slaves under capitalism because capitalism is more free (although marked by wageslavery and so unfree, but better than the previous system).


For all those that get their education on economy from prager u.


>I didn't do that
then stop calling it communist and call it the ussr. It failed to achieve communism and could only ever achieve state capitalism, now devolved into a capitalist shithole.

>why not watch

I at least attempted to provide a brief summary about my thoughts and what the video might be about. Can you do the same? Plus its not like I'm posting hour long videos, at max I've posted 30 minuted videos and even the longer ones are from academics with authority in their fields so you may learn something worthwhile from it, while yours is just from some guy on youtube.


>you have the time to write out pages of gish-gallop

Yeah, I think we're just on very different levels here. If you consider that "pages" you need to get your head checked. If you expect me to summarize an entire socioeconomic plan in less words than my previous "pages" then it shows you completely misunderstand just how much meaning can be effectively translated through the use of language. It's a series of steps starting off with stuff like anti-trust regulation and introduction of banking transparency laws and then progressing to all sorts of shit like socialization of "natural monopolies" like cable and internet to democratization of the money supply. It's literally pages and pages of specific policy proposals to regulate the economy to empower the people. Capitalism was originally a smear term used by socialists to describe a system that defers entirely to capital so when people go conflating market economies with capitalism I have to try and correct them. Now you just want me to slap some stupid label like "communism" on "the system" I want so you can easily misinterpret it and label me a moron like you did the last time. It's not that simple and I wish simple minded people like you could understand that.


Let right of ownership be defined as right to full control of the services that can be derived from a good.

Every individual has right of ownership over their own body. This is likely true because the one with most control over a body is always the mind inhabiting a body. Other individuals physically cannot have control over the services derived from one's body unless the mind inhabiting the body consents, freely or unfreely, to some degree or if the body is killed.

One's labor is a service derived from one's body. Therefore individuals have full right control over their labor.

When one's labor produces goods from raw, completely unaltered natural resources and nothing else, these goods can accurately be considered a combination of labor and resources. Because individuals have full right and control over their own labor, and because the raw natural resources are not controlled by anyone else, the individual therefore has full right of control over services derived from these manufactured goods. This is where the concept of property comes from. Note that if another person has already improved the natural resource in some way, such as a farmer clearing unimproved timber and working land, that other person must, using the same logic used previously, now have right of ownership over that improved natural resource. Permission must be obtained from the owner of this improved resource.

If alienability is physically possible for a good, the owner has the right to alienate it, ie transfer full rights of ownership to a consenting party. Else they could not be accurately said to have full right of ownership over it.

This is the reason why I believe that communism is unethical. There is no logical reason to distinguish between personal and private property when determining ownership rights. By stripping someone of their property, you are infringing on not only their rights of self-ownership but the rights of self-ownership of the workers who produced and sold the goods that you are stealing.


Get filtered for posting a tranny


Capitalism in this sense is the "magical word" which the video speaks of.


An hour long video is 2 30 minute videos together. "Academic authority", at least as far as social sciences go, is just mutual masturbation and not a good measure of worth, it is more of a sign of a self-serving hegemony than anything else. It's at least ironic that you appeal to such an elitism after criticizing hierarchy and manufactured consent. The video is nice because it deals with the subject of what "capitalism" means, the nature of the leftist critique of capitalism, the linguistics behind it, etc. Sorry I can't develop too much on this because I gotta go right now, maybe later.


You can still have all or most of those things despite not working in most western societies, little ernst.


>county music
Nope, that is not ok.


>peter kropotkin

Did you come from Breadtube?

Anyway, no that is not what is being talked about and mutual aid as kropotkin lays out is not the same as what is being talked about in the mutual benefit in a capitalist exchange in free market economics.
People are not working together for "the greater good", but because they as a individual personally benefit there and then, and the other party also personally benefits so they voluntarily as a individual collaborate. Since it is a win win for all parties involved in the exchange that means it is mutually beneficial to them, rather then being one sided.

Video explaining "real anarchism" and what natural rights are.



Its like each company firm is a republican island with democracy inside, but on the market ocean they compete just as same under capitalism.

It is a good compromise of company democracy and the efficiency of the market


That didn't actually address any of the content of the video that was posted.


Under free market capitalism one can technically form companies in nearly any arrangement they wish to try, and if it is economically viable then it does well for all involved.
There are companies that are run democratically that are able to compete in current markets so it does seem viable if one prefers that work arrangement.


Peter Kropotkin is literally for class based genocide and ignores the NAP.
There is no such thing as positive rights. You can not ethically force people to do things "for the greater good" at the point of a blade or barrel of a gun.


Whats the big deal with a little redistribution? Rich people still get to enjoy their lives and have plenty of luxury and NEETs get to eat. Its not the huge crime against humanity you make it out to be. Rich people are still happy even with high taxes.



What ends up happening is that wageslave wizards pay for succubi slut birth control and possibly housing while other wizards are homeless.

What's to say putting more into the coffer will change that dynamic? Certain groups and people are favored at other's expense.


Your diction makes it sounds like you are admitting that it is indeed a crime.


Theft, extortion, and murder are wrong.
That's why it is a big deal.


well that's based on America's anti-parasite prejudices, that healthy adult NEETs have chosen their fate, while the poor innocent children shouldn't pay for the sins of their parents.

From a Wiz perspective, the problem is not welfare, but the yankee prejudice that if anyone deserves bux it is the children.


By participating in the democratic process of election, taxpayers consent to the result of those elections


So you're saying its ethical to rob someone who votes for high taxes but unethical to rob someone who votes for no taxes?
Wait, do citizens even vote for taxes? Don't politicians do that?



All citizens of a democratic state have a right to participate in elections, and by being citizens consent to the result of those elections whether their candidate wins or not.

Every state in history has had taxes even before democracy. Democracy is just nice enough to let everyone have their voice heard first.


Can you show me the contract that substantiates what you're saying?


I'm no fan of Trump, but I'd say hes proof that primary voters have the right to elect anyone as radical as they wish, whatever the party establishment wants.


I don't consent and never have consented. It isn't voluntary and if I try to leave I will ve murdered.

Now what?


you don't understand mutual aid dude. Anarchists don't assume people are altruists, but work together in common self intrist. Why don't you read actual anarchist texts instead of a misinterpretation from some youtuber that doesn't understand anarchism. Also peter kropotkin is one of the founding fathers of anarchism, every anarchist should know him, it doesn't mean we came from fucking breadtube, although I do know about that. The entire concept of mutual aid and principle of reciprocity is based on self interest, not fucking 'the greater good' and you saying that shows you're just pulling shit out of your ass dude, no fucking anarchists assume people are inherently good.

There are different types of authority, and its not against anarchist principle to trust an authority of a proffession, such as a doctor, because it would be in your own reason to since they have demonstrated skill in that area. It would be foolish not to give an engineeers more weight in an engineering decision than someone inexperienced, but you don't have to follow them like in a master/slave relationship.


Your definition of master/slave relationship seems to be incredibly arbitrary.


I mean you don't have to do what the 'doctor' says, but you probably should since he is an experienced professional, but you don't have to.


Don't forget that you're paying the doctor to perform a service for you.


>All citizens of a democratic state have a right to participate in elections,
This is false
This is also false

Y'all are just athoritarians who don't respect individual liberty.
Ancaps are the true anarchist as they are for full individual liberty without compromising logic or ethics.
Ancoms aren't real anarchist, they are evil communist thugs who want to replace the top of a fair system with themselves through violent means.
Fuck 'em. They are as much enemies of freedom as the fascist and equally violent.


File: 1565832966006.jpg (61.01 KB, 620x430, 62:43, comrade32234.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Polls showing approval ratings for congresses have always been historically low, like around 30 percent approval so your capitalist democracy isn't working well at all.

you must be a propertarian. What you're referring to is the homesteading theory of property formed by Murray Rothbard. In this, it's argued that property comes from mixing your labour with a natural resource, so transforming the world into private property. This theory has its roots in painting a conceptual history of families going out into the woods and forging a home by the sweat of their labour.

It was refuted by one of the founders of anarchism in 1840 : '“if the liberty of man is sacred, it is equally sacred in all individuals; that, if it needs property for its objective action, that is, for its life, the appropriation of material is equally necessary for all … Does it not follow that if one individual cannot prevent another … from appropriating an amount of material equal to his own, no more can he prevent individuals to come.” And if all the available resources are appropriated, and the owner “draws boundaries, fences himself in … Here, then, is a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one has a right to step, save the proprietor and his friends … Let [this]… multiply, and soon the people … will have nowhere to rest, no place to shelter, no ground to till. They will die at the proprietor’s door, on the edge of that property which was their birthright.” [What is Property?, pp. 84–85 and p. 118] '

Proudhon treated apologies for private property as universal and absolute as propertarians treat property itself. In response to the claim the private property was a natural right, he explained the essense of these rights were universality and that private property ensured that this right couldn't be extended to everyone. To claims the labour created property, he simply noted private property ensured that most people have no property to labour on and so the outcome of their labour was owned by those that did. Regarding occupancy, he simply noted that most owners don't occupy all the property they own while those who do use it don't own it. So considering this, how can occupancy justify property when property excludes occupancy? He showed that the defenders of property have to choose between self interest and principle, between hypocrisy and logic.

Even considering the nominal value of the theory shows numerous problems. If titles to unowned resources can be claimed, then how can you come to appropriate rivers, and lakes ect? You can change the direction of the river but can the river itself be owned? How can you mix your labour with water and if you do, can you own the ocean?

Also what counts for mixing your labour to claim property? If I build a fence around, say the only lake in a desert, then do I own everything within the fence or just the fence itself? It also ignores the economic power of corporations. A billion dollar capitalist organization could transform far more resources in a year through its wageslaves than any small family in the woods can.

This theory is also completely ahistoric. It transports a 'capitalist man' into the dawn of time and constructs a theory of property on what you're trying to justify. You ignore the fact that for most of history land was common property, and the idea of 'mixing labour' to envelop it was invented to justify the expropriation of the land from the general population to the rich.

All this theory really manages to do is justify capitalist and landlord domination, but leaves nothing for the working class.


Holy shit, Google just used red flag laws to swat a whistle blower.

In other words they tried to get the state to kill him before he could testify by lying and saying he was a danger to himself and others.

This is some next level bullshit right here.


I mean this can taken to democratic voting decisions in a workplace too or when voting on general investment in confederations meeting within your industry/community or whatever. Say you're discussing new methods for a production process, the people that work more intimately with the process may hold more weight in convincing people to act on certain accordance, but your power is never alienated to them so you always have the right to refuse. No gods, no masters is the slogan of anarchist.


Let me cut through the bullshit
>Private property doesn't exist because I need other people's stuff and if they don't give it to me for nothing in return then one of us is going to die
I will say it as many times as it takes. It is wrong to murder people and steal from people.
Trying to justify that it doesn't count as stealing because you need it more they they do is bullshit.
Non aggression principal. Learn it or admit to being the evil looter you really are.


This response doesn't engage with any of the arguments made against that theory, but it does show how much disregard and inhumane your theory is. According to your principle, I can mix my labour with a human and turn him into a slave, and his rebellion (according to you) is a crime. Considering this, it's not surprising we have seen slaves in capitalist societies and people treated as commodities when they follow such an inhumane logic. According to this, it's wrong to rebel against the kings and queens because all the land is their property, we shall stay in perpetual servitude to them since we are dispossessed. Get the fuck out of here. But yeah you're too dumb or deluded to make a proper response.


You keep using the word slave but y am almost certain you don't know, or choose not to know, what it means.


then enlighten me


All that is consequentialism, not logical.
If you accept that my axioms are true, show me my logical are. Thinking up "problematic" consequences does absolutely nothing for me because I believe that my axioms are correct and I am thus obliged to logically follow through with them. Even if someone for some reason had to kill and eat me to perpetuate their existence, I'd still have right of ownership over my body.
Yes, some claims of ownership are illegitimate. It is possible to improve a river though, ocean property can be owned through practices such as constructing ocean-bound buildings, pipelines, etc.
It's just logic. If you believe that people own their bodies, private property naturally follows from that.


Wrong, it's impossible to mix labour with a human like that. If you do it without their consent, it's infringing on their property rights over their own body and is therefore aggression. If you do it with their consent, some agreement has to be made; the individual has an obligation to follow the agreement but this is no way means that you "own" them, because the terms of the agreement specify what you get in exchange for your labor on that persons body. You are selling your labor on an object that someone else owns. This is the exact reason why employment contracts are not theft.
You're being a ridiculous loon now. A dictator simply claiming some property does not mean that they actually own that property from an ethical viewpoint. This is why the state doesn't own the entire country. They didn't actually acquire it, they have just claimed that they did.


>philospohy terms
You must be the same guy from earlier that mentioned them. I said it before and I'll repeat it here, I ain't a philosopher and I'm not going to bother learning what your jargon is so if you want to make responses and expect a proper response from me on them then respond in a way that is understandable to that don't know philosophy. Also you're using an unrealistic/highly unlikely scenario of cannibalism while I use realistic scenarios. People aren't cannibals and if they were beasts then we can just throw out all our beliefs because then society would be impossible.

>if you believe in axioms

I don't know what this means, but I don't believe in your self ownership rights and think they are meaningless when applied to reality. The entire idea of owning myself, like some object, is strange because I am myself and I exist, people aren't the same as property to be bought and sold and owned and rented.

>employment contracts are not theft
thats all assuming that you agree that private property is legitimate, which I don't agree with.

And I'm not being a loon but only pointing out inconsistencies in your theory. Your theory isn't clear at all in defining what counts as mixing your labour.

All in all, your theory has nothing to do with reality but it may be useful for philosophical posturing.


I tried to define the terms in my post. Consequentialism is determining the ethical value of an action by its results. This is not logical because ethics deals with the value of actions, not results. I feel like I've said this before.
>The entire idea of owning myself, like some object, is strange
'You' are different from 'your body'. That is why you call your body your body and not just you. "I stubbed MY toe" not "I stubbed I".
>Your theory isn't clear at all in defining what counts as mixing your labour
Actually if you read the post again you'll find that I did define it. I said that if you use labor to produce goods, and if the materials used to produce the goods are unclaimed, you own those goods. If someone else owns the materials you'll need to get permission to use them or convince them to transfer ownership to you.


>more posturing
well if this is what the conversation has devolved into then I don't have an interest in continuing it. Whatever this system of ethics is, you won't convince anyone to believe in it because no one understands it, when people associate together this theory has no useful practical application and it will never be used, it has no practical content to it and I'm not interested in theoretical posturing.


Whether we agree or disagree, nice to see wizs discussing the philosophical foundations of politics, rather than surfing whatever current events is trending on twitter


Logic is posturing. Okay, thanks. I think that concisely sums up your beliefs.


File: 1565855017709.png (147.35 KB, 590x446, 295:223, 44323.PNG) ImgOps iqdb

ReviewBrah says to stop being misogynistic, homophobic, objectifying, sexist, racist and unequivocally hateful

Just unsubscribed to him


File: 1565855128881.png (81.22 KB, 500x419, 500:419, proxy.duckduckgo.com.png) ImgOps iqdb


He used to read /pol/ and now more norms are giving him attention so he becomes a faggot. Very weak.


He made a video indirectly disavowing 4chan last year and said they manipulated him when he was weak and vulnerable. I don't how this is new or surprising to you lol.

I remember him tripfagging on /r9k/ and /fit/ years ago. I think he got pissed when they started making memes of him with white nationalist quotes or shopping Eliot Rodger next to him.

Tbh I couldn't give a fuck less what his politics are (how you even get racist or misogynistic comments on a video of some guy eating a burger I don't know), but I stopped following shortly after CNN covered him. I liked his early years because he was a NEET in a semi-precarious situation, with a messed up sleep schedule, no friends, and obscure interests.
Now he's just a quirky character for normalfags to gawk at and most of his non-food videos are just shitty self-help book tier advice or shallow philosophy.


I never understood the appeal of that guy. It just seems so pretentious to me, a guy in a cheap poorly fitting suit with disgusting nails rating junk food and pretending to be civilised.


unsubscribed as well. i appreciate you guys who lurk on twitter so that i don't have to. i hate that site too much fundamentally to browse even my most favorite artist's accounts.



I used to be absolutely obsessed with reviewbrah and was reading nearly every comment on most of his videos, since I was neet for those 4 years and had nothing better to do. I don't think I ever saw a genuinely racist/misogynist/homophobic, like ever. There were "edgy" jokes but the vast majority of them were directed at reviewbrah, a straight white male, so none of that stuff would even apply. I stopped watching him in 2017 but I sincerely doubt that in the past couple years there's been a sudden influx in racist, misogynist, and homophobic comments.

I'm sure it's just a matter of him "getting big" and feeling the need to virtue signal to appease the masses/mainstream. Current year, so everyone has to pretend that racists, misogynists, nazis, et al. are absolutely everywhere and "taking over" everything. The only "solutions" to this "problem" is of course more censorship, stricter hate speech laws and policies, etc.






Remember: Epstein hanged himself and if you think there's even the small chance of it being otherwise you're a conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones and hopefully our enlightened corporate censors will do their job. By the way, searching for anything related to Alex Jones makes it pretty obvious that Youtube is heavily manipulating the results in an artificial way to prop up mainstream media orthodoxy.


>deleting politics posts in the politics thread

You're a fucking idiot mod kun.


>I hate niggers
>you are the nigger
>no you are the nigger


>I hate niggers
The original post wasn't gratuitous. Why did you delete it? Did it hit too close to home?


While it isn't conclusive, it is just one more suspicious thing on a mountain of suspicious things.


Blatant shitposting is actually against the rules. If you don't like it you can go back to shitchan where you came from.


But it was not "blatant shitposting" you retard. The word "nigger" was part of the context, whether you like it or not. It's not your right to delete posts just because they give you a sandy vagina.


>Do not submit low quality, inflammatory or off-topic posts

I wonder what you are doing right now?


That's a pathetic fallback position and everyone sees it.


just repost what was censored


That is a good way to get banned for a few days.
Mods really don't like that. In fact they usually take it pretty personally.


pastebin it, I want to see


it was just some moron posting /pol/ jew memes


He doesnt wanna get banned


What's so wrong with this message? Have wizards never been victims of bullying? or just random hatred in general? Stop huffing /pol/ farts.


It's fallacious to equate 'wrong' beliefs with bullying.


That kind of message won't stop normans from bullying wizards. It literally has nothing to do with us. What are you smoking?


He had comments turned off for years as well. Most of the 'negative' ones I saw after he turned them back on were just stuff like asking if he has aspergers or making fun of his mannerisms. I guess it's just virtue signalling for him.

I would mostly agree but the things considered "bullying" might just be wrongthink. If you're going around belligerently calling someone a nigger or faggot yeah that's kind of just being a sociopath dick. But even if you're just making arguments for why, say, all this encouragement of kids to turn trans at an early age is maybe not a great idea, some people will flip and claim it's hate speech or bigoted.


Not to mention the vast majority of bullying has nothing to do with "misogyny" "racism" or "homophobia". In fact i've never once seen anyone get bullied because of that, not even once. Which isn't to say it's never happened, but i'm sure it's not even close to as often as most people make it out to be.

Usually when someone gets bullied it's because they have poor social skills, have awkward mannerisms, are really ugly, are slow but not quite literally retarded, or dress in an unusual way.

Most bullies aren't dumb and are quite conscious about their social image. They know bullying some because of their race or sexual orientation would be a bad look and almost certainly turn everyone against them. Heck, most of the biggest bullies when I was in school were SJWs.


Youtube is really manipulating their algorithm. I realized now that I tried to search for Alex Jones memes on youtube. They didn't even deleted the videos, but even if I search for 1:1 the title it doesn't show up in the search of shows up far below videos that have way less views. Top videos are "VICE News" "CNN" "NBC News" "LastWeekTonight" "HuffPost" etc, despite me searching for the actual title of the video. It's certainly not something targeted since I never watched that trash.

There's an increasingly strong attempt by Google to prop up the old hegemony. The left experimented with decentralized news, it gave rise to the nationalist right wing. They don't want that anymore, "I guess CNN is where it's at, private corporations have the right to censor anyone they want after all!". Haha. Hypocrites, dishonest, parasites, all of them. Alex Jones is totally right when he calls them demonic.


in the 2000s gay and fag was still the main insult


Speaking of youtube manipulating things


Wow. I can't believe that this level of force is standard practice for when the police get information that someone is suicidal. Google must have people in the police force or have payed them off or something.


They probably implied he was potentially going to mass shoot something, or maybe they did have connections, or with the state of police now days, they could really have such a absurd show of force whenever they think they might have to deal with someone with a weapon.
CA is one of those states that really wants to disarm everyone while was one of the first to fully militarize their police.


I really hope someone at Google gets charged with lying to the police for this.


I really doubt it, but it would be nice. Such behavor is obviously unacceptable, and can even be construed as potentially attempted murder.


Trumpers and liberals can all agree that George W. Bush was the worst President in US history. On domestic policies it was largely standard GOP stuff, except maybe the Patriot Act.

But in foreign policy he took the post- Cold War, Pax Americana, Golden Age and turned it into shit. Just imagine what the world would be like if the 1990s never ended.

This is beyond Left and Right. Like you can hate Regan's policies, but the USA was better off in 1989 when Communism collapsed than in 1980 when the USSR and Iran were taking over the world. Same with Obama, the US economy was objectively in a much better place in 2016 than in 2009. I didn't even touch on W Bush's economics, but 2001 vs 2009 yeah. Its amazing how much damage one man did. The whole ISIS and refugee crisis is aftershocks of the Iraq War.

And you could say 9.11 was out of his control. But first off he had plenty of warnings about it. 2nd he chose to make the Afghan war wider than it had to be, and 3rd most of the damage was from the Iraq War.

In 2015, this might have been called a liberal or Ron Paul line, but in 2019 its what the Republican President also believes.

Its just amazing what W Bush did to America's post Cold War Pax Golden Age


You can't do that much damage in 8 years. Typically in these cases, a change made several decades ago catches up and breaks things. In this case, it was the deregulation of the financial industry made in the 70s. The financial industry was regulated heavily after something called the great depression to prevent it happening again, and this was just removed in the 70s.


File: 1566023416180.jpg (44.91 KB, 850x400, 17:8, 102-39-71.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>Right wingers aren't known for their critical thinking, knowledge of history
>knowledge of history

Coming from the guy who said this:

In the USSR being unemployed was a criminal offense, you moron.

"He who does not work shall not eat" - Vladimir Lenin

"The phrase appears in his 1917 work, The State and Revolution. Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals could be allowed access to the articles of consumption."



Article twelve of the 1936 Soviet Constitution states:


Also, while fascist regimes weren't exactly "wizardly" either, last time I checked, christian monasteries weren't outlawed and it was still possible for you to live in peace as a monk (which are basically religious wizards), unlike the soviets who either destroyed or closed down the majority of christian and buddhist monasteries that existed and whose monks were killed off, tortured or sent to mental hospitals.


>The whole ISIS and refugee crisis is aftershocks of the Iraq War.

Not really, ISIS formed in Syria and spread to Iraq and the war in Syria has been kept going for so long because of the US and Turkey. Most 'refugees' aren't even from Syria or Iraq anyway.


I meant the basic foundation of ISIS and the instability that nurtured it was from Syria. ISIS in Iraq was formally a branch of Al-Qaeda.


A decent number of the refugees are also Afghan, another of Bush's wars. And as for the rest of the Arab world, the Neocons were taking credit for the Arab Spring, as a new 1989 of democracy, inspired by democracy in Iraq. If they trumpeted credit when it looked good, they asked for blame when its bad.


tbh I had been thinking mostly of his foreign policy fiasco, and had forgotten oh yeah btw the US economy melted down on his watch.

It didn't come from no where but the subprime mortgage crisis. And Nial Fergueson argues that W Bush's dream of a "homeowner society" played a major role in formenting the bubble. It was incentivized as the best investment.

Where W. Bush really stands out is in the stark contrast of the USA he was handed in 2001 and the USA he left in 2009. Like as much as you might dislike other Presidents, its rare to find one with the economic and foreign situations that reversed in just 8 years.


I don't know, there are a few other contenders that were pretty damn bad.


Well I think with Bush it goes beyond left-Right policy. Like yeah Dems will hate what the GOP does and vice versa. So some will see the Great Society as a good thing, helping out those on the bottom, while others will see it as too expensive and encouraging the lazy. But with W. Bush it goes beyond left-right policy, as everyone thinks economic meltdown and the Middle East on fire is bad for everyone.

The USA in 2001 was in a Pax Americana peak, and falling apart economically and politically in 2008.

When LBJ left office in 1969, the economy was still healthy and yeah there was Vietnam, but Nixon was the one who stayed there 4 more years, when the majority of the casualties took place, and when South Vietnam eventually did fall its repercussions were much less than the spillover from Iraq.

So I think its beyond "which Presidents' policies I don't like" and which President left the USA the worst off in 8 years.



The entire LBJ-JFK 8 years was one of economic expansion. Which is pretty rare in US history, even the Ike years had several recessions.

In terms of the Cold War, LBJ installed pro-US governments in Dominica and Indonesia with little cost to the USA. And the economy grew on his watch. It might not have been good for the 3rd world people, but unlike Iraq, the USA didn't have to pay the price for it.

Bigger economy, the US Cold War empire maintained and expanded. By those 2 domestic and foreign standards theres no way to say he left the country dramatically weaker.


His policies rotted America from the inside out.


yeah you don't like his policies. But America was doing just as well economically and internationally in 1969 as 1964.

What is unique about W Bush, is that whether you are Left or Right, no one can say America was better with the economy and middle east collapsed


I read this guys' reading list and its all very mainstream neoliberal books, its surprising he went so Alt-Lite race realist from that intellectual pedigree.

As usual with these Alt-Lite types when he did a video condemning ethnonationalism and economic protectionism, his usual fan base turned on their guru



Truman was worse, communist China wouldn't exist today if the US had a different (more anti-communist) president during the the time of both the chinese civil war and the korean war.


I was going to write a post saying it's contradictory to to say someone is a race realist and against ethnonationalism, but then I remembered alt-hype kind of fits that definition. I didn't know this was a popular position to hold, I thought it was just Faulk's autism acting up.
Also I wouldn't say race realism is "alt lite". I've always thought of alt lite as being the average trump fan: ie someone without much deep thought on these issues. I'd say race realism is even too much for those people to stomach.


You have to remember that half the GOP was still Ron Paul type isolationists in Truman's day, so even setting up things like NATO and containment had a lot of opposition from both Left and Right. And you had plenty of rightwing Generals who said on a purely military basis that nothing could be done to save the KMT. And seeing how Vietnam turned out, much less tiny countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, it wouldn't be worth attempting to occupy a nation of a billion for decades.


I would say plenty of Alt-Light people would defend racial differences and IQ, rather then stake themselves on races being 100% IQ equal. But they don't advocate the strong policy consequences as the Alt-Right.

Like the youtuber in question is against ethnonationalism, yet his top crimes of LBJ are supporting integration and immigration, and hes big on cultural war stuff too.

The libertarian to Alt-Right pipeline is pretty well known now. I would say he sticks to libertarianism where it directly conflicts with the Alt-Right, as opposed to many who've dropped it completely.


File: 1566106997897.mp4 (15.96 MB, 400x400, 1:1, the end game.mp4) ImgOps iqdb

Just nuke the western world already.


If a large % of males are doomed to be crab, maybe its just economic efficiency that they assume a role in which they will have more value rather than sticking with a sinking ship. What is degenerate about going from lesser to higher value? It is just rationality.


This isn't /b/.



If by crab you mean never reproduce? I wouldn't say that is true in modern times. More like 75% of men are able to reproduce. The rest may not for many reasons, but being a crab sure as shit is in the minority.


Look at how many zoomers are already identifying as crab when they are still in their teens



Those are just idiot teenagers. That isn't anything new. They may have children later than previous generations but they are still gonna have children.


who cares, fag kids are gonna be fag, why make them hate themselves for it


I dont hate you for "it"


It's sad, children are really easy to brainwash. They seek approval and attention, if a mother is saying that he is a good boy for dressing like a succubus then that is what he will do.


In the first place that goes beyond being a fag. That’s full on fucked up tranny shit.
Second, a child that young should not be thinking about their sex or sexuality.


implying that this kid would've been a fag if it wasn't for brainwashing


When I was that boys age I was into makeup and stuff and even took my own initiative to request that my mom do my makeup and nail polish to which she mildly complied but then tried to phase it out and discourage me from it by trying to replace my interests with sports-shit. Some boys are just faggots, no brainwashing needed; I hate when people get butthurt over one boy out of millions that is doing girly stuff and his parents actually not snubbing his feelings into the dirt, because these people have no idea what it's like to be in the position of a boy who is interested in girly stuff, they are just ignorant heterosexuals who can't fathom the possibility that any boy would ever be interested in things like makeup and dresses. I support the boy and his parents, let him live his life and do what he likes.


Aren't you the same person who was posting about how his dad called him a sissy and a succubus and how this 'ruined his life' and made him gay?


It is to his benefit (and to your benefit) to snub that crap early. Do you honestly think that dressing up like a succubi would make your life better now? Chances are it would only be worse. At least a normal male won't be singled out to a substantial degree by society. Strutting around like a freak will see you treated in kind.
Also, my first crush when I was young was a guy and my preference has only leaned further towards men with time. This isn't some view exclusively for hetero's.


so how has denying your true self for the sake of fitting in worked out for you?


if he enjoys it I don't see why he shouldn't be able to do it, it's better than his parents crushing his self esteem and turning him into a depressed wreck


i remember those days, they were real if you were with and had your shit together.
1.25 an hour to start, fast advancement no count/spics/pajeets given us shit. liberals/niggaz were beaten,(or hung/burned) no one except commies made a stink about it.
19 cent gas(12-13 cent if gas war going on) real food, coke tasted good, our first new house 3 br 1.25 acres was $3200 !
its now $350,000 no shit!
the good old days were real!


with=white count= cuunz
too tired giving up posting for today. btw a 10 cent comic i bought in the 50's is worth $3700!


I never wanted to dress up like a succubus. My entire point was that being into men does not equal being a tranny.
That said, I'm very much "myself" all the time, and it's probably been a negative for me. If I had the social capabilities of the typical normalfag I'd probably be happier and have a better life in general.

It's called tough love. If his parents don't do it, then everyone else will when he grows up. You have to learn at some point that you can't just do whatever you want without repercussions. Or at least, not in public. If he wants to do weird shit, he should learn to do it in private.


Liberalism will consume all, until all light fade from the cosmos.


They won't have higher value though, they'll still be in the same spot they're in now just with more wrecked bodies. Actually forcing this on boys will be even more damaging.


idk some of them are like puppies who get neutered young and never develop their male traits to begin with and then get pop careers and stuff they'd never have as boys


File: 1566246872784-0.png (19.94 KB, 579x262, 579:262, 6644.PNG) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1566246872784-1.png (324.33 KB, 579x489, 193:163, 4433.PNG) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1566246872784-2.png (59.72 KB, 631x557, 631:557, 5r543.PNG) ImgOps iqdb


Seriously I think there should be a third gender, I don't want to be a man, I don't care about having sex or anything about succubi, why can't people like this just drop out and become some kind of simple-living servant class or something, I'd gladly sweep and clean chads castle halls for a room and a pc, he can have all the succubi he wants.


Gender means a component to creation. In all acts of creation there is an active and passive component. There is no other category that an object can fall into.


I just don't want to be part of gender crap, I don't want to rape kids or succubi, I just want to live peacefully with a modest purpose, like a eunuch house servant but something more fitting of modern times


The life of a garden hermit is, or at least would have been, the life for you.


Prepubescent boys aren't fags unless outside forces push it on them.
These kids are victims of a people using them as props to brainwash them for a fucked up agenda.
This is just another vector of the radical lefts dream of deconstructing all forms of masculinity by trying to stamp it out as early as possible. It is a direct goal of feminism and the Frankfort school.
I seen the results of this non-sense. It leads to pain and suffering for the individual in the long run, and damage to the society at large.



Relatively neutral coverage of the shitshow in Portland.


The U.S. government has banned any transactions over $10k.
There are no notes larger than $100.
Inflation will with time make these two figures meaningless.
In a cashless society, the U.S. government will have complete control over all transactions. No escape. Everything will have surveillance.
Instead of outright Chinese-style "social credit score," the U.S. will have this implemented via the two or three major payment processors, and there can only be two or three because cash will not be viable to use in the future and the number of regulations to try to start your own payment processor are innumerable.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government has pushed 8chan off of the internet. Christchurch's proposals are gaining support in Western governments, so you let alone not having any anonymity, you won't even be able to hear anything slightly edgy.

I'm getting really depressed. I don't see a bright future.


>It leads to pain and suffering for the individual in the long run,

what form of masculinity doesn't lead to pain?

Wizchan has /dep/

crabs nuff said

And even chads who should be the ones doing well according to crabs, are crying about the persecution of their masculinity louder than anyone.

So its not like the volcel, crab, normie chads form of masculinity are so much more happy and joyful than the gay form


Some people are just gay without some conspiracy to brainwash them into being gay. God I wish people like you would just die off already.

[Last 50 Posts]
Delete Post [ ]