>supporting monarchism
>supporting parliamentary politics
>supporting dictatorships
freedom means nothing to you autistic cucks I guess
t. Rousseau
>>79107284
The Enlightenment was a mistake.
>>79107531
your mom was a mistake
>>79107697
My mother is Mexican so you'd be right.
>>79107823
Good on you for being a self-hating little bitch.
Rousseau is the intellectual godfather of the hippie leftist pro-nigger movement. He was also a perverted exhibitionist and femdom fetishist
>>79108051
>little bitch
>says the country of manlets
>>79107284
>talks about freedom
>while using a man whose line of thinking is directly responsible for one of the bloodiest regimes of the 18th century as example
kek
>>79108072
Nice buzzwords faggot. Why don't you try reading and deciding for yourself.
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm
>>79108130
I'm an american on vacation dumbass.
>>79107284
It's a very simple concept. One anon on pol called it "Honorarianism".
Not a lot of force is actually involved.
I mean, do most people choose to buy t-shirts and pants? Yea, and people say it's an individual choice, but it's more of a conformity. A social hierarchy naturally exists, and if we let it exist, it works in society's favor. The ONLY reason tyrannical leaders happen, is because of the off chance that one might be born a psychopath; and even then, they are still expected to live up to their role as monarch. We enjoyed living in a monarchy. People were happy. The only reason, after thousands and thousands of years (that's a long time), that we stopped the tradition, is because someone made freedom sound like a necessity.
Freedom's not a necessity. You choose very little of your own free will; free will doesn't exist. It's a fabrication, and the more you fight for it, the more immoral it seems to be.
Many of the modern institutions that we have today, such as the modern rightwing, conservatism, libertarianism, liberal values, are all LITERALLY leftist views. When the left and right diverged, it was the monarchs on the right, and the liberals on the left.
So when you say its a "dictatorship", it couldnt be further from the truth. We believe in rule of honour over rule of law, and that a social hierarchy free from "rights" will be one that governs by propriety, and people will avoid crime not for the sake of being punished, but for the sake of being honoured.
>>79108322
>implying robespierre did anything wrong
>implying if he didn't kill off the king's bloodline and their loyalist we wouldn't be living under bloody, incompetent and oppressive monarchs working against our interests
wew
>>79107284
>lives in an anarchy
>espouses freedom
Grow up
>>79108681
So what you're saying is that rights perpetuate a legalistic attitude towards people?
>>79108681
>honor
look billy, it's fucking nothing!
Sure freedom isn't a necessity, but I'd be damned if I don't fight to protect my interests. Free will is irrelevant, we must all work under the pretense that we have it to get shit done, unless you want to be a tankie and believe in historical determinism.
>So when you say its a "dictatorship", it couldnt be further from the truth. We believe in rule of honour over rule of law, and that a social hierarchy free from "rights" will be one that governs by propriety, and people will avoid crime not for the sake of being punished, but for the sake of being honoured.
Pure idealism.
>>79109125
I am critical of most states, especially including the mexican one. But I don't live here. Also, this is hardly fucking anarchy, I literally passed 3 police trucks with federalis carrying machine guns in the back today.
>>79109172
I think looking at rights as pure ideals is a mistake, they are just things in our own self interest.
>>79109172
Yea, the anon said it better than I could.
Basically, if you said "All men are equal" or "All men have these rights", you're creating an artificial bracket of people. To uphold the bracket (the rights), you have to have law ,and people to enforce law. The modern liberals today, for example, want mass immigration because they have a distorted sense of "society". Ever hear of the "no true scotsman fallacy"? If I said "No Canadian is a Muslim", someone will say "That's obviously not true, because this Muslim has citizenship and was born here". The fallacy itself is a fallacy, because it adheres to a legalistic sense of society. Society isn't legalistic. When blacks complain that whites have a system of institutional racism, and that whites perpetuate their own power structure, well that power structure they talk about is the natural social hierarchy of America. Society is, by definition, created by white people. It belongs to white people, just by the virtue of their honour (social hierarchy). I mean, is it objectively moral that we may eat cows and pigs but not dogs and cats? No, it's determined by the social hierarchy. We naturally uphold these morals. We don't need a legalistic government (like libertarianism) to control what is and isn't a right. We already decide those internally in a moral fashion that is congruent with the social hierarchy . If we start to decide what is "objectively" moral, then when we go by those codes and laws, we distort our perception of society (like liberals do). Even a national socialist government distorted morals; they, by law, made Jews look like animals, in an effort to dehumanize them, just as liberals today are putting human faces on animals.
