The root belief of leftism is egalitarianism. It is the basis of all their beliefs, all their rhetoric, and all their victories.
But it isn't true.
So why don't right wingers attack it? Nobody wants to be the guy that says 'that person is poor because he is stupid and lazy.' But that IS reality.
Right wingers lose the argument because they tacitly accept that 'egalitarianism is a good thing that should be defended and sought after.'
Thus they lose almost all arguments with leftists.
I agree, it's the root belief
I'm a "right winger" and I don't believe that anyone is equal...thought that was pretty common for us.
I also have nigger and dyke coworkers and I accept them even with their problems. Call me crazy...
As for attacking. If you argue for inequality you will be called racist s exist etc. They don't argue logically. How can u reason with unreasonable people?
>>70963202
Why should you care what someone calls you? It's not racist to judge individuals based on their merit, and anyone who thinks that it is, is wrong.
>>70962704
that thing oppresses me. Should I wear a skirt just becuase I am female?
>>70963362
Because modern society will attack you for pointing out facts and discredit anything you say.
>>70963590
"Equality isn't true."
>>70963362
I know, l know. But egalitarianism is entrenched in every corner of our society. If you argue against it you will spoil your reputation forever, and if you support nationalism you are literally Hitler. You will be slandered or even jailed.
>>70963887
They can't jail you for that in just about any country. You're worried about the social stigma.
>>70963483
yea. dyke
>>70962704
>You're a social darwinist, which means you're literally hitler
Equal rights is great. Egalitarianism, on the other hand, goes against the basic natural rule that might is right. Anyone who is truly an egalitarian and acts on their beliefs will be destroyed by a group of outsiders without much difficulty
Because Republicans are dead in the water. Hope you enjoy a liberal future fuckboys
>>70963887
Propaganda of ethnic religious etc hostility is a crime in Russia. Yes they can
>Why don't right wingers attack the root belief of leftism?
Judaism?
>>70962704
I agree that egalitarianism is an important part of the current madness. Attacking it can be dangerous but it is also ineffective.
As for the right wing refusal, it is because the right wing is almost as cucked as the other wing, if these terms mean anything. At the very best, people presented in the mainstream media as loonies will say that they believe in "equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome", which is certainly incomparably better than the other cucks, but still indulge in egalitarianism.
I don't believe in "equality of opportunity".
>>70964416
Fuck, this>>70964416
Should ve ben answer to >>70964048
>>70962704
There is nothing inherently wrong with egalitarianism. Providing people equal opportunity is not bad, as it causes people to have to be up to the task.
Forced equal outcome is, however.
You can believe in equality without being a leftist, it's just a matter of having equal rights and therefore equal opportunity.
People should not have equal outcomes, which is the leftist socialist/communist plan.
>>70964621
Fuck equal opportunity together with equal outcome
>>70964621
This. If you want government to give you right to own sex slaves you are even worse shit than positive discrimination types.
>>70962704
Right wing is equal oppurtunity, left wing is equal outcome.
>>70964645
Liberalism is the political belief that equality trumps all other pillars of morality. You can believe in equalism but it is not a priority.
For conservatism, Order is the highest pillar.
Because most "right-wingers" are just cuckservatives, and they share more in common with the left than they do with other right-wingers. They believe in egalitarianism.
Just look at how completely they teamed up with the left to fight Trump.
>>70962704
>Nobody wants to be the guy that says 'that person is poor because he is stupid and lazy.' But that IS reality.
It's pretty hilarious when I travel abroad, especially to Canada and the UK.
I have told this to people straight, explaining essentially the following:
>Not everyone can do what I did, and they don't deserve what I have.
When you say any version of this, it's like you just cut a kitten's throat in front of them.
How they are taken aback by such brashness! Such heresy!
It's simple: people are fucking stupid and they don't all deserve 40 second chances.
Everyone deserves a chance. Funny thing, just living in the US is your chance. We have plenty of welfare, programs, opportunities, free clubs, donors, charities, safety nets...this list goes on.
I grew up in literal poverty, in a place poorer than 80% of the US. I worked my dick off to pay for college, and now I'm reaping the harvest of my work.
Fuck poor people.
>>70964936
Order is overrated. Liberty should be maximized.
That's why libertarianism is the greatest political philosophy of all time.
>>70964621
>Providing people equal opportunity is not bad
agreed
>Forced equal outcome is, however.
Which is the reason why you need to fight egalitarianism, cause it makes people by default assume that any unequal outcome is by "discrimination".
>>70962704
Where does one draw the line? And is it a sliding scale of value or a cut-off?
And how does one convince, under the current system of egalitarianism, that a lesser person is better served by losing rights and privileges?
Once you gibsdemdat (rights and privileges) one cannot take them away.
The system is fucked and there is no return under current conditions. Only after a reboot and complete reformation could one possibly hope to establish a meritocracy/oligarchy in which the few lord over the lesser.
I think Heinlein's system in Starship Troopers is the most likely to succeed as it proffers a true equality of opportunity. Unfortunately such a culture depends on a consistent and unabated state of war in which the human race survives and thrives only through conquest and subjugation of external threats. The weaker people (morally and martially) are willing to surrender certain rights to those who risk their lives for the nation as forsaking citizenship ensures relative safety. This engenders a protector-class that dons the mantle of responsibility and with that certain privileges to steer society.
Something about this
Game over.
>>70965234
>Liberty should be maximized.
This statement seems a bit haphazard without a definition of liberty, and an example of it being maximized.
One thing I appreciate about the US is the separation of power between the State and Fed. Historically, states and counties are free to govern those things that only affect them: local infrastructure, social laws, etc.
However, there is certainly a need for a Federal government to regulate trade between states and international trade.
Disclaimer: I think gay marriage should be legal, and I wish everyone would shut the fuck up about it. HOWEVER, when Obama legalized from a Federal level, I was fucking pissed. I couldn't believe that such an invasive social policy was pushed out from the Fed. That should have been for each state to decide, and if Texas wanted to stay anti-gay, fucking let them.
t. C#/Database Admin bro from /dpt/
>>70962704
>So why don't right wingers attack it?
because egalitarianism is all that keeps sane people from tolerating their bullshit
>>70965800
>without a definition of liberty
Only requires two words: natural rights.
>>70964621
Equal opportunity is almost as bad.
A father giving preference to his children is violating equality of opportunity. A man setting up a company with a friend instead of a randomly chosen man is violating equality of opportunity. Having friends and relations violates that too. A guy that will exclusively consider marrying a redhead also against equality of opportunity. A man preferring his kinsmen and his nation to foreigners is also out of the question.
This "equality of opportunity" may have, at some point, made a decent counter line to the worst of the egalitarianism madness but it's an awful middle-of-the-road compromise. When you look at concrete cases, equality of opportunity denies the possibility of acting based on your preferences because in every single case you will violate this stupid principle.
The only reason people got hooked up on this slogan is because it's catchy, but when you really watch the content of the principle, it's the virtual abolition of individuality.
>>70965803
stopping their bullshit*
>>70965900
>omg these things aren't equal opportunity lol even though i know we were talking in the sense of government
kill yourself.
>>70965478
But without external threats this system would collapse as a protector class is no longer necessary for survival.
Unfortunately we live in a society that is relatively free from danger. This allows the weaker individuals (intellectually, physically) to demand equal rights and equal say.
This is why so many people yearn for two fictional events that are likely to never occur:
>Zombie Apocalypse
>Colonization of space
Both create Darwinian atmospheres in which the weak are culled (or left behind) and the clever/strong determine the systems of government and rights allowed to the group.
In the popular sub-conscience people understand that the system is broken and too many weak people determine the fate of the strong. People are yearning for a reset but there is no system in place to allow for this. Thus people (/pol/ included) live in imagined fantasies in which the wrongs of the world are righted and the weak/ill are purged.
>>70964315
Republicans are dead, but white nationalists are the strongest they've been in a while, and are only growing stronger.
>>70962704
Because it is literally prohibited by post-WWII world order.
>>70966004
And what exactly is the "equal opportunity in the sense of government"?
Because I've seen this (not an) argument used in the cases I mentioned above, like hiring people.
Now for more strictly government affairs. People shouldn't all be able to become judges or marshals or other state-related occupations. I don't believe in one man=one vote either if that counts as equality of opportunity in the sense of government.
>>70963483
Prove the silhouette wearing a skirt was born biologically female or even identifies as female.
We're tired of your ceaseless heteronormative cisshit privilege.
>>70967420
Trannies are mentally ill faggots. May they burn in hell.
The root belief of leftism is not egalitarianism. The rise of groups like BLM and other SJW movements show that it's become somewhat of an oppression fest, in which people debate about who is the most oppressed, and proceed to blame real problems on the evil, cishet white man.
>>70964621
Reality itself is equally opportunistic. Individuals have unequal dispositions though, and that is the reason for unequal outcomes.
>>70962704
>start a political platform that says some people are better than others and should be treated as such
>expect for the masses to vote for you
Dumb fuck
>>70967866
>The rise of groups like BLM and other SJW movements show that it's become somewhat of an oppression fest, in which people debate about who is the most oppressed, and proceed to blame real problems on the evil, cishet white man.
And the root of this is an unwavering belief that everyone should be perfectly equal.
>>70968231
Why would everyone have the right to vote in an unequal system? Why would there be a vote at all?
The premise of the OP is false.
Being right wing does not mean that you think the poor are only poor because of lazyness and stupidity.
If this is what you believe, then you have fallen to the propaganda of Jews. Shame on you.
There are tons of rightwing litterature about how poverty is created by institutions. Arguably, the entire field of political science is about this, be it left-wing or right-wing.
Also, all movements past the enlightenment considers all people to be equal. Be it liberalism, conservatism or socialism. Even Fascism.
>>70965234
Liberty isn't even real. Your decisions are just a combination of your inherent instincts, genes, innate abilities exercising themselves. Your belief that you have free will is an illusion.
>>70962704
The equality meme has become cancer. Much like the God meme, it was once necessary to maintain social cohesion, but now serves only to separate the delusional from the experienced.
Good luck trying to challenge it though. It's basically God the leftshits.
>>70968415
Your wealth is a function of your decisions. Your decisions are a function of your genes/upbringing/values etc.
They did a 50 year study at a liberal college and they found you could decrease your chance of being poor to less than 1% by doing the 3 following things:
1. Don't have children until you're married.
2. Finish your education.
3. Work full time.
Institutions and social programs are built for the sole reason you mentioned, that there is institutional gaps in opportunity, but it ain't fuckin true, brohymn.
>>70967235
>I don't believe in one man=one vote either
What do you believe in, besides authoritarianism?
>>70968372
You need to get elected in to change the system. A radical right wing that runs on a platform of "egalitarianism is awful and you won't be allowed to vote anymore" isn't going to make it out of your mom's basement.
>>70969772
Even a cursory reading of history and thinking that radical government change happens from 'voting' is kind of hilarious.
>>70969183
Responsibility triggers the cucks.
I had to teach a man of 25 about double entry bookkeeping. The man was complaining about not getting welfare when he simply didn't run any budget and had bought at the time the latest iShit from apple.
People are retarded mess with extremely high time preference. Like niggers, they can't project in the future or see trends in the past. I was laughed at by a girl of my age because I was planning an hypothetical financial situation five years ahead. People live paycheck to paycheck because they chose to.
Most people don't invest their money and don't save in tangible goods, they let some jews in banks have complete control. I'm not talking about people the next Trump or Musk. A simple Excel file to track your investments made from an internet platform do the trick. Takes one to two hours a week depending on how funny or not you find it.
>>70969575
>What do you believe in, besides authoritarianism?
I'm rather lolbertarian.
I guess that "authoritarian" in the sense that each person has largely authority on his life.
>>70969895
>original post is about right wingers losing arguments to leftists
>now it's about a radical government takeover
You framed this topic as political discourse. Why bother arguing with a group you plan on murdering anyway?
>>70970828
Who said anything about violence?
You don't need violence if you constantly win the argument. Just look at the ascendance of the left.
>>70962704
You don't have to believe that everyone is equal to subscribe to social liberalism. You're painting with a brush so wide that you're not saying anything important.
>>70971087
Yes. You do. You have to believe that everyone deserves the same things as everyone else, and any reason why there is disparity is because of evil corporations, racist police, the fabulously wealthy exploiting the workers, etc etc etc
Not only that, but deeper, the democratic system itself is the reason for it. Everyone has a vote = everyone is the same value.
>>70971351
You're spouting a false dichotomy. This is a spectrum, not "I believe in equality or I believe in huge inequality"
>>70962704
The right wing doesn't attack it because the right wing today is the left wing of ten years ago. You know how people say 10 years from now we will be debating pedophile rights? Well that's true. And 20 years from now people on the right will call you pedophobic if you have a problem with it. That's how it's projected to be, but we can change that. There's currently a movement to conquer the current right wing and replace it with something much better, it's called the "alt right". We don't know what we're gonna replace the current right wing with yet, but we have a leader now, and his name is Donald Trump. Check us out on twitter, we have a hashtag and everything
>>70962704
Even the right is washed out by leftist ideals these days. Trying to attack such a rooted ideology makes you a "racist" or "sexist," regardless of what all the evidence says.
![aristotle-philosopher-the-worst-form-of-inequality-is-to-try-to-make-unequal[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/84TD5wo.jpg "aristotle-philosopher-the-worst-form-of-inequality-is-to-try-to-make-unequal[1].jpg")
>>70962704
Because Democracy means equality. You cannot get rid of the delusion of equality, until you get rid of Democracy.
Even the Greeks knew it.
>>70971818
What is a spectrum? Human beings? Well no shit. But that fact alone means no one is equal.
>>70962704
Good post OP
It's like when people say cities or neighborhoods are bad.
No, the people who live there are bad.
>>70972478
Man you really are not following.
>>70972580
Its not a fucking spectrum. Niggers are better at running, but have low IQ. Asians have high IQ, but are all autists. Whites have decent IQ and are strong.
Equality isnt a spectrum, its a goddamn myth.
>>70972753
Those are also generalizations that are often incorrect. There are smart black people, charismatic asians, dumb white people and those are all pretty common. Almost everything in life is a spectrum, including IQ and g variation.
>>70972580
I'm not following because you don't understand what you're saying and thus you're bad at getting a point across.
What is a spectrum? Human equality? That's a misnomer. If human abilities/dispositions are a spectrum then equality is untrue.
Opportunity? Again, another myth. What does 'equality of opportunity' mean, if the agents exercising that opportunity are unequal. It means exactly what we see, which is the leveling of the playing field by taking from the talented, intelligent, and successful, and giving to the stupid, talentless losers.
>>70972931
>don't generalize!
>proceeds to generalize
>>70964621
Equal opportunity is just a meme because people will still complain they didn't get a fair chance when they don't succeed.
![HLMencken[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/P6C9MDj.jpg "HLMencken[1].jpg")
>>70962704
The necessary outcome of Democracy is class-warfare, turning one group another.
The source of power in Democracy, is fear and greed. The job of every politician is thus to scare people and promise to give them something. Often by claiming it was stolen from them, or because they are otherwise entitled to it, because of some real or imaginary offense.
>>70972931
>generalizations
Statistics. Factual, falsifiable, controllable, statistics.
The point is, equality is a meme. Humans are not equal, they dont have equal potential, and do not have equal starting points.
>>70973119
I didn't say don't generalize. I'm saying that it's not always right.
>>70973224
I never said they were equal.
>>70973030
I'm not saying equality is true, I'm saying that you can stil be a liberal or a leftist and acknowledge that people aren't all as good as the next one.
>>70962704
>So why don't right wingers attack it?
IT'S NOT HIS FAULT YOU FUCKING ABLIST PIECE OF SHIT, BEING LAZY IS GENETIC STOP WITH YOUR UNCHECKED PRIVILEGE UGH GOSH
>>70962704
If you support Democracy, you support socialism. Whether you believe it or not.
Find me any Democracy that has ever existed, which produced anything but some form of socialism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM
>>70962704
Because you can't win and you psyop shills pushing alienating women are fucking obvious as shit. We all know that they fuck things up but we need to protect them from themselves and ruining society until we get artificial wombs
>>70973392
>I'm not saying equality is true, I'm saying that you can stil be a liberal or a leftist and acknowledge that people aren't all as good as the next one.
You're confused.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
>Definition: Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.
>>70973392
You will agree the left is predominantly socialist in its economic, if not its main theme? You cant believe in socialism if you dont believe in equal rights and therefore equality.
So no. You cant be leftist and believe in inequality.
>>70973675
>>70973781
Yeah I know what liberalism is. You can want social programs, universal health, education, higher minimum wage, and acknowledge that not everyone is equal. In fact I don't think I know any liberals that think everyone is equal.
>>70962704
Let me remind you OP. Arguing with people about what is or isn't true, is a complete waste of time.
As I tell everyone, people believe what they want to believe. Thus, whatever someone wants to believe, becomes their reality.
It is pointless then to talk about facts or reality. The way to change someone's beliefs, is to make them want to change their beliefs.
Beliefs are the product of systems, not objective truth.
>>70973863
In other words, you don't know anyone who is an INFORMED, CONSISTENT liberals, as you yourself are not.
No one here is saying liberals don't contradict themselves daily with their conflict of reason and emotions.
>>70973863
What is the goal of social programs, retard? To GIVE PEOPLE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES!
So they fundamentally believe people have equal rights and are therefore EQUAL.
You goddamn thick retard.
>>70974093
No man, you are just too stupid to understand what I'm telling you. Would you refuse to play for a team if you were better than some of the other players? Do you honestly think that income is directly related to wealth? Some rich faggot who gets a high position in his dad's business without any experience is not better than some guy who has worked his ass off since he was 16 and never breaks middle class.
>>70974093
income directly related to competence*
>>70974291
A social program is there to pool public money for the good of the public. Refrain from autistic all caps tantrums.
>>70974532
The very notion that you think they have the *right* to do that isa belief in equality. Right wing believes you earn what you have. Poor? Get fucked, you didnt work hard enough. You only have rights to what you achieve.
Taxing and redistributing money? What is the underlying philosophy? Equal rights. To things like life, property and so on.
>>70974314
No, but neither am I arguing we should let the cripple play on our team and help him. The cripple should starve.
>IT'S not THEIR FAULT
>IT'S not THEIR FAULT
>IT'S not THEIR FAULT
>IT'S not THEIR FAULT
>>70974091
>Actually believing what you just said is true
>>70962704
-infinity/10 bait
Even republicans know that "muh free market" is baloney.
Adam Smith was a utopian
>>70962704
Winning the egalitarianism argument would have dire consequences.
>>70965670
This would be more true if the tall person had to lift the midget himself.
>>70974813
Yeah well anon some of us believe that society should work together to a higher degree rather than on an individual level. I understand your perspective, I also believe it's needlessly harsh. We could play by the pure laws of natural selection, but there is no need to anymore and I don't think we should.
>>70974984
>society should work together to a higher degree rather than on an individual level.
I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't share that utopian belief.
I do think you'll find that there's no method for doing so.
>>70975109
You literally think it's impossible to reach a higher degree of collectivism than we do now? You know that we've done it before right?
>>70974943
suchas?
>>70974984
Just accept you consider humans equal, that they have equal rights, and that that makes you a lefty.
Right wing believes ability provides right, and merit. Not your mere existence.
Niggers for instance, are subhuman.
>>70965670
Faggots should buy tickets
>>70975383
liberals sperging right the fuck out and committing a bunch of ugly atrocities.
>>70962704
>The root belief of leftism is egalitarianism.
That's why Christianity is the religion of ultimate cucks.
>>70975384
Merit implies everyone is dealt the same hand in circumstance. Your philosophy is just as flawed as saying "everyone is inherently equal"
I don't believe everyone is equal, I just know our society could be much better if we pooled our resources for the collective good.
>>70974879
A while back, there was a video of "if google was real", and this lady comes in looking for information about vaccines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k00anSFA4-Y
This is a product of something called "Confirmation bias". This confirmation bias is why two different people can witness the exact same thing, but see something entirely different.
As long as there is any basis whatsoever for a given belief, those who want to believe it, will believe it.
This is the problem with arguing for instance about religion. Those who want to believe it, will believe it. Those who don't, don't.
In the case of religion, the question then becomes, why would anyone want to believe it? God only wants to limit you, and take your money.
>>70975575
*pic
Leftists don't believe in egalitarianism though. They did 50 years ago, with 2nd wave feminism but they don't now.
>>70975592
Fuck you and your taxes, statist. I am not handing you my money so you can really inefficiently run the state into a migrant wave.
State always leads to leftist wet dreams like mass migration, censorship and the gulags.
>>70975715
>implying a single changing philosophy rather than branching philosophies
Does everyone on this board just strawman over and over?
>>70975751
Censorship is a pretty right wing idea and the rest is an exaggeration. Western states are the freest, the most prosperous and are liberal democracies.
LEL LIBERALS DON'T WANT TO JUDGE PEOPLE OFF THEIR CHARACTER AND ACTIONS
>>70962704
Trying to reason with a leftist is a pointless endeavor. If you try to point out that people aren't equal they will just name call you a bigot, racist, sexist, etc.
>>70975598
Ok mate, and how do you know you weren't just now biased enough to render what you just said completely worthless?
>>70975514
you mean like they are anyway?
>>70975598
>cont..
Those who tend to believe religion, are those people who want to believe that religion is true. You can even see it daily on 4chan.
The people here realize that without god, all there is is degeneracy. Thus, they see religion as a bulwark against it. And thus, they produce within themselves an affinity for religion, which can sprout then into a belief in god, in the bible, and a desire even to spread its message.
This is also true of people who have gotten older, and who have lost their loved-ones and their friends, and who are nearing death. At that point, it becomes more beneficial to the person to believe there is something beyond this life, than for death to be the end.
Thus, as I said, people believe whatever they want to believe.
>>70975715
>They did 50 years ago, with 2nd wave feminism
Are you stupid? Women's quotas (2nd wave of feminism and guilty until proven innocent, are not egalitarian.
>>70975514
But that would give us the mandate we need to shut them down once and for all.
>>70975962
they were closer to it than the endless privilege and special treatments of it nowadays
>>70975952
>The people here realize that without god, all there is is degeneracy
What are you babbling about? There are only a handful religiots here at /pol/ and they are regularly ridiculed.
>>70975871
>Censorship is a pretty right wing idea
>commies never censored anything
Yeah ok.
>>70975308
You think collectivism is people working together?
>>70975952
Refer back to >>70974879 and then to >>70975914
>>70976165
Alright man, I'm done with you until you can answer a single post without a strawman.
>>70976197
Yeah that's the point.
>'that person is poor because he is stupid and lazy.'
this isnt accurate
the correct version would be
>this person has decided to remain poor because of their decisions
being born poor isnt your fault. doing nothing about it is.
>>70976267
>Yeah that's the point.
Charity is people working together, collectivism is a handful of politicians taking money and handing it to their pet projects
>inb4 we're a democracy we'd just vote them out!
The 98% incumbency rate of Congress and the extremely low voter turnout begs to differ.
Without egalitarianism the democratic state has no legitimacy. Sure real total equality can not exist but if you're gonna have a democratic state you must strive for some kind of egalitarianism
>>70975952
>cont again..
This is true in the case of politics as well. I've debated about equality, and racial tendencies, and the Constitution. I have presented such overwhelming evidence, and I was always amazed by quickly it could be dismissed with almost no consideration.
As long as they can find the remotest and most asinine argument in their favor, they will use it.
In the case of equality for instance. The argument is that the differences are, if not purely, almost entirely environmental. And thus, since all environments aren't equal, then we should not expect equality. But if all environments were equal, then we could have equality.
But since inequality of talents must necessarily produce inequality of environments, then the desire for equal environments is never achievable, and thus efforts made to make them equal, must continue indefinitely.
And as I said, it is pointless to argue otherwise. Who wants to admit that they, the people they care about, or ethnicity, is in any way inferior?
>>70976411
Blows my mind how hard so many of you refuse to see the democratic state as a tool of the people.
>>70976557
It blows my mind how you refuse to see that elected officials don't have the will of the people in mind. History has proven this many times over.
>>70975914
>>70976073
Look, my point is merely this, people belief what they want to believe. And they will seek out the evidence which supports what they want to believe, and in spite of all other evidence to the contrary.
This is why people don't all believe the same fucking things. It is called confirmation bias.
Why are you arguing with me about it? Good fucking lord.
>>70963202
Even in Russia? fug, this world's buggered beyond repair
>>70976787
>Let me add...
There is a joke among anarchists.
What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? A six-figure salary.
If you understand the fucking joke, then you'll begin to understand my point.
>>70976550
In a way to lefties all people are equal in importance to them
If you want to change them, hit them where their pride is
That's how I've stopped being a leftie
Get them to see the very worst of non-whites, and then supply the stats to show how much more often it happens
Then make them really see non-whites as human, which would entail them to have responsibility for themselves
Make them realise they're treating them as children, and that they will never be fully human as long as they're infantilised
>>70976731
History has also proven that a liberal Republic is the most stable and preferable type of government. Any alternative is much worse.
>>70976787
To show you some self-reflection, and that you are self-refuting. Learn to have some self-awareness
Also read this, slowly: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#AleRelChaSelRef
>>70977107
Liberal meaning free, collectivization is the antithesis of a free economy.
Because treating every member of society equal is the core of a civilised society.
>>70975963
I mostly trust conservatives not to do things like, say, forcibly sterilize black people, but if it came down to stopping it, I'm pretty sure a large majority of you will feel genuinely uncomfortable about it but ultimately just shrug your shoulders, mumble something about that being a little far, and then move on with your lives.
>>70977060
>Get them to see the very worst of non-whites, and then supply the stats to show how much more often it happens
Showing statistics to these people, in almost all cases, doesn't work. Why?
And the people it does work on, why does it work on them?
If we use the refugee situation as a reference. The liberals were practically preaching to import all of Syria, until the refugees started raping everyone.
Their survival instinct kicked in, and suddenly they had an incentive to look for evidence that supports their desire to resist further immigration.
Previously, their confirmation bias made them believe, erroneously, that refugees were just the same as everyone else, and to even discard many statistics as merely the result of circumstances. But, when they begin to feel themselves unsafe, then their confirmation bias runs in the opposite direction.
In both cases, they believe what they want to believe. It isn't the facts that persuaded them, it was merely what they wanted to believe, what they found most useful.
some are controlled opposition
>>70977813
Then do this
>make them really see non-whites as human, which would entail them to have responsibility for themselves
>Make them realise they're treating them as children, and that they will never be fully human as long as they're infantilised
Works better with people who think with their heart
>>70962704
>I WAS RETARDED THE ENTIRE TIME.
>>70962704
Because of this:
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
At least in America, the right tends to have an almost religious devotion to the founding fathers, and they espoused a pretty openly egalitarian political philosophy. A conservative trying to argue against equality runs into a pretty significant contradiction, in that he cannot use the original intent of the founders as a point of argument without also embracing some level of equality.
>>70977933
Well, I'm not egalitarianism, but also I don't give a fuck about choices of the rest of the world. So, why should I fight against all these arguments? I just don't care. Go fuck a dog if you're happy with it, u know what I mean?
>>70978136
>owned slaves
>first immigration was limited to free europeans
everyone before the 60s was HBD as hell.
>>70962704
For at least the last hundred years, the world’s most dynamic religion has been neither Christianity nor Islam.
It is leftism.
Most people do not recognize what is probably the single most important fact of modern life. One reason is that leftism is overwhelmingly secular (more than merely secular: it is inherently opposed to all traditional religions), and therefore people do not regard it as a religion.
Another is that leftism so convincingly portrays itself as solely the product of reason, intellect, and science that it has not been seen as the dogma-based ideology that it is.
Therefore, the vast majority of the people who affirm leftist beliefs think of their views as the only way to properly think about life.
That, in turn, explains why anyone who opposes leftism is labeled anti-intellectual, anti-progress, anti-science, anti-minority and anti-reason (among many other pejorative epithets): leftists truly believe that there is no other way to think.
The truth is that the left has been far more successful in converting in converting Jews and Christians to Leftism than Christianity and Judaism have been in influencing leftists to convert to Christianity or Judaism.
Finally, leftism has even attained considerable success at undoing the central American values of liberty.
“In God We Trust,” and “E Pluribus Unum,” supplanting liberty with egalitarianism, a God-based society with secularism, and “E Pluribus Unum” with multiculturalism.
This triumph of the twentieth century’s most dynamic religion — leftism — is why, even in the midst of the Western world crumbling, the leftist candidate may win.
>>70977961
I'm not saying facts are useless.
All I'm saying is, it is far more effective to give someone a reason to believe what you want them to believe.
In essence, people believe what is in their own interests to believe. Which is why it is very easy for someone to believe they are superior to other people. But it is nearly impossible for someone to accept that they are inferior to other people.
It is very easy to believe I am entitled to your money. It is very difficult to believe that someone else is entitled to your money.
If you want to smoke weed, you find reasons to believing that smoking weed isn't just not bad, but that it is good. All the potheads I know genuinely believe marijuana is some kind of wonder drug that cures cancer.
Evidence of this is all around you.
>>70977933
In fact, and as an addition, I think that this is just a misunderstood thought. Most of people wants equality IN LAW, not in personal choices.
>>70962704
>it isnt true
its subjective
>>70978636
"In God We Trust" wasn't a motto until after WWII.
>>70977961
>Let me clarify...
It isn't just about the liberals, its also about the refugees and other minorities.
These people claim that they are exploited and abused. And that, the system is rigged against them, partly because of the legacy of slavery or imperialism or whatever. And this is all a liberal needs to justify what they already want, the destruction of capitalism and the redistribution of wealth.
>>70978906
>>70978651
So what are you gonna do about it?
First though you have to believe in the very concept of truth. See >>70977286 for details
>>70962704
why cant we just gas the kikes now and have a race war already
>>70979200
>First though you have to believe in the very concept of truth.
The only objective truth, is that all truth is subjective. Which is my point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs
>>70979424
You're probably just being subjective
See >>70975598 >>70975952 for confirmation that humans are too biased to be believed
>>70979660
I agree with you, but you're not refuting my point, you're making it.
At this point, I assume you're trolling me.
so if we are tearing out democracy, enlightenment, adam smith, etc, root and stem what shall we use to maintain and organize society? WIcca and Nietzsche? Christianity and kings?
>>70978818
God Damn Nigger did you sleep through History class?
In God We Trust was in the Star Spangled Banner and was on our Money as early as 1864.
>>70979798
It would appear so to the dogmatic relativist
Please read this for your own good >>70977286 Slowly
You'll then see my point
>>70963041
its that double edged sword of a constitution that guarantees rights to all citizens, even the fucked up ones.
I speak for myself only, but id like to see niggers get their shit together and not be niggers.
a great example of this is the ww2 tuskegee airmen. all black pilots, did a fucking great job. and didnt nigger at all.
and its really fucking sad to see what they could be, and instead be what they are now.
fucked up world senpai.
A problem that some anons have touched on is that many American conservatives and right-wingers are unable to argue or have beliefs outside of the left's (a broad term to be sure) moral paradigm. A lot of mainstream conservative thinking is essentially "a series of trenches dug in defense of yesterday's revolutions" and thus doomed to inevitable defeat unless one is able to reject left-liberalism on its own terms (there's a good macro on /pol/ about the four stages of red-pilling that many /pol/tards go through).
Back to equality and egalitarism. I don't think you have to completely reject the entire concept of equality to say that's it's not the end all-be-all of politics and shouldn't interfere with other political values, or even that a certain amount of hierarchy and inequality is benign or even beneficial.
>>70979924
goddamnit nigger he's still right. motto =/ being only on coins. There is special significance when a nation legislates a motto.
>>70980023
You basically said...
"It is foolish to believe that all truth is subjective, since to believe that all truth is subjective, is to believe in objective truth. With that objective truth being, that all truth is subjective."
It is silly circular reasoning. Do you really want to annoy me with that shit?
>>70964498
/thread
>>70976073
Think it's the other way round mate.
>>70980379
It's called you disproving yourself. All tennie philosophies end up in the same say you'll see
>>70981038
>in the same way*
>>70981038
Fine, I disproved myself, but you haven't proven anything either, because you can't.
In any case, I'll repeat my subjective belief again, "people believe what they want to believe." And what people want to believe, is that which they find useful.
Who would possibly believe otherwise?
>>70978653
you make the mistake of assuming THEIR agenda ends there. Equality is a trojan method
to insist a position of advantage.
Equality is related to the direct interest of individuals who are bent on escaping certain inequalities not in their favor, and setting up new inequalities that will be in their favor, this latter being their chief concern.”
– Vilfredo Pareto
>>70978636
they resemble what they loathe
>>70981592
>you haven't proven anything either, because you can't.
Prove that I am incapable of doing so
>In any case, I'll repeat my subjective belief again, "people believe what they want to believe." And what people want to believe, is that which they find useful.
You have no reason to believe this, or proof to sustain it, so why are you criticising others on this matter?
Pic related, OP
>>70982333
>You have no reason to believe this.
Are you telling me that you don't believe it?
The very fact that almost everyone disagrees with each other, regardless of how informed they are, is proof that all beliefs are subjective.
The fact that people, when it is in their interests to do so, can support the worst kinds of depravity, is proof of subjectivism.
I would concede that the very nature of subjectivism is self-defeating and circular. But, I know that you agree with me. Because it is the only thing which can explain the ability of so many people to dismiss what appears on the surface to be objective truth.
I don't know why you continue to argue, except that you just want to annoy me.
>>70983162
Are you not a person nonetheless? Whence have you avoideth thine own standards of evidence?
>I don't know why you continue to argue, except that you just want to annoy me.
I just used to be a relativist/leftist once so it's always a bit of fun to talk to people like you. Kinda nostalgic
>>70982333
>so why are you criticising others on this matter?
I wasn't criticizing them. I was explaining reality to those who don't understand why so many people are able to believe things which aren't true(or at least, don't seem to have sufficient evidence to support them).
I spent literally years arguing about the Constitution on another internet forum. I came away with the understanding that no one really cares what the Constitution says. They only care about what they want the Constitution to say.
True equality is about equal opportunities, not equal results.
>>70983162
>But, I know that you agree with me. Because it is the only thing which can explain the ability of so many people to dismiss what appears on the surface to be objective truth.
How? I just think you've been talking mostly to stupid people
Doesn't mean they were subjective. Just less rational
>>70963041
We have equal opportunity.
In that we are equal.
All people do not have equal ability.
And thus we are not equal.
>>70983855
Sounds a bit anecdotal to me
>>70962704
Because the Right is disorganized and has weak or inflammatory spokesmen.
>>70964498
Even Marx was a Jew
>>70972931
There are no charismatic Asians.
Check out this new Trump video called "The Evolution of Donald J. Trump" It's less then 3 minutes long and its good.....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ofZsphTPf-U
>>70983552
>I just used to be a relativist/leftist
I'm not a relativist/leftist. I'm about as far from a leftist as one could possibly be.
What I was actually trying to tell you, is that it is pointless to try to convince leftists with facts. The way to control behavior, is through incentives. Basically, as I pointed out, beliefs are the product of systems, not facts.
If we want to understand how the world became what it is, we need to understand the incentives which produced what we now have.
More specifically, what I was trying to point-out, is that Democracy can produce nothing but some form of Socialism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM
Thus, if you are opposed to Socialism, you must necessarily be opposed to Democracy.
>>70983871
This, we should all have the same opportunities without government preference.
>>70980062
kangs an shit?
>>70984446
>Basically, as I pointed out, beliefs are the product of systems, not facts.
Am I'm just asking why do you think you've avoided the loop?
You're obviously not using facts
>>70962704
Because the cuckservatives are the outer party, not the opposition.
>>70984769
>Am I'm just asking why do you think you've avoided the loop?
Are you telling me I'm wrong? Or just being obtuse?
I fully concede that my argument is self-defeating. But on the issue, you know that you agree with me.
People believe what they want to believe.
There is overwhelming evidence to the affirmative, and effectively zero to the contrary.
>>70985513
There is no such thing as evidence. Everything is just systems and like, opinions man
>>70962704
>'that person is poor because he is stupid and lazy.' But that IS reality.
Is it?
![quote-dependence-begets-subservience-and-venality-suffocates-the-germ-of-virtue-and-prepares-fit-tools-thomas-jefferson-94000[3].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/k5YepPU.jpg "quote-dependence-begets-subservience-and-venality-suffocates-the-germ-of-virtue-and-prepares-fit-tools-thomas-jefferson-94000[3].jpg")
>>70985747
Well, there is anecdotal evidence, and empirical evidence.
Though I would agree with Descartes, all evidence comes in through our senses, and our senses are flawed. Thus all evidence cannot be 100% trusted.
But in any case, lets remember, we are on the same side. You assumed me to be a leftist because I made reference to subjectivism.
I am actually a moralist. My opposition to the system, is that I realize the system can produce nothing but immorality(pic-related).
>>70962704
Everyone knows that unequality isn't a problem
Poverty is
>America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.
>Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.
>>70986832
>all evidence comes in through our senses
I'm not so sure about that mate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Verification-_and_falsification-principles
>Thus all evidence cannot be 100% trusted.
Meh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Philosophical_skepticism
You're being so middle 20th century
>>70986832
>all evidence cannot be 100% trusted.
tautology
nice
>>70987238
platitudes, strawmen, and unsubstantiated claims
yep, its not an argument
>>70986832
(cont)
Like I said, you first need to believe in truth
And that truth is not exclusively empirical
>>70969895
Hitler was voted into power and couldn't have gotten it without the vote.
>>70987805
>And that truth is not exclusively empirical
I'm still unsure of what it is exactly that we are fighting about. I'm not disagreeing with you.
In fact, I'm not the one who said that empirical truth is all that matters. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. I said that people believe what they want to believe, with or without evidence.
I don't know if you remember, but this thread is about egalitarianism, equality, and Democracy.
I was merely trying to explain that Democracy always produces what we have, because of the incentives built into the system. Democracy means equality, a politician must pander for votes, and thus he must treat all voters as if they are equal, regardless of whether they are or not. It is thus impossible to say that one group, or even one person, is superior or inferior to another, whether it is actually true or not.
When it is impossible politically to counter the assumption of absolute equality, then to whatever extent there is inequality, we must pretend that it isn't the result of natural processes. All inequality must, if all people are fundamentally equal, be the result of nefarious forces.
This is why when people advocate for "equality of opportunity", the discussion always becomes about "equality of results". For, if people are equal, and they have equal opportunity, then it should produce equal results. If it is not producing equal results, how can there possibly be equal opportunity?
Democracy is poison. And everywhere it has ever existed, it has produced some form of socialism.
>>70977933
To be fair, if a horse rapes a man, you can't say a crime was committed against the horse.
The "born this way" argument makes sense when arguing against people who actually did believe homosexuality was a choice, but those people have been irrelevant for some time now.
>>70988450
Hitler was certainly voted into power. But, had it not been for Enabling act(which effectively created a dictatorship), which was a byproduct of the burning of the Reichstag. Hitler wouldn't have been able to do much of anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
>>70988774
>I said that people believe what they want to believe, with or without evidence.
You're describing a behaviour which doesn't necessarily have a bearing on whether there is an objective reality or not.
So I thought I'd call you out on it
My job has been finished now. I shall go in peace
Take care, marginally autistic anon. I have once been the same
>>70962704
Because egalitarianism has wormed its way into, and is protected by, the concept of "freedom" (however childish and naive it may be)
After all, only filthy gommunists hate freedom! No man has the right to tell anyone else what to do, since we're all equal!
We all have natural, inalienable rights, since we're all equal!
Every man, woman, and child has the right to individual self-determination, because we are equal and they know themselves better than anyone else does!
Attacking the concept of egalitarianism is an attack on the notion of "freedom" as its paraded around today, and right-wingers are unable to give up that core part of their political identity no matter how much the data says that we are not equal.
Left-wingers defend egalitarianism for its own sake.
Right-wingers defend it because without it, the rhetoric the espouse regarding freedom has no philosophical basis.
>>70964048
You can lose your job though. This is why most people are afraid.
>>70962704
Actually faggots the root belief of leftism, the whole thought of "individuality" trumping the needs of the community and all that shit comes from the belief that the soul is separate from the body. That's right. In regards to liberalism, it got where it was at because it argued that the soul itself is free and individual in essence and so too is humanity.
Well faggots its 2016 and we're still subscribing to an ideology that believes in a soul for fuck sakes.
Read on the concept of "Dasein" by Heidegger, that the body is not separate from the mind, that's what motherfucking athiesm purports.
We ain't such special snowflakes after all now are we? So let's stop fucking encouraging this "special" bullshit that just serves to fuck everything good of a society up.
>>70989257
>You're describing a behaviour which doesn't necessarily have a bearing on whether there is an objective reality or not.
I never discussed whether or not there was an objective reality. I was only ever talking about perceptions and behaviors of individuals, which are subjective.
My point was always that, it is pointless to discuss the truth on its own. Because the beliefs of individuals have little in common with what is objectively true. Rather, the beliefs of individuals are subjective.
More importantly, the beliefs of individuals, are based on what those people want to believe. And what they want to believe, is based on what they find useful to them.
Look at it like this. When you're a faggot taking it up the ass, why would you want to believe that by doing so, you're going to rot in hell for eternity?
When you're committing genocide, you find some reason to justify it, to turn it from an evil act, into a good one.
Whether there is objective truth or not, I was merely trying to explain that, to change the behavior of individuals, it is much more effective, if you use incentives in-built into systems, rather than trying to be the purveyor of a truth, which for the most part, can't be proved. Or at least, can be doubted.
>>70990242
To be fair, the mind is separate from the body in a way, but in the sense of an ephemeral, unique entity such as a soul.
Ultimately, it does boil down to individuality. That we are all equal, and thus that authority ought only be temporary and given by consent of the plebes.
>>70989589
Freedom doesn't just follow from egalitarian ideas of rights, freedom unto itself implies equality in a sense; to be unfree in a political sense (as opposed to the physical sense, like being unable to fly) means someone must rule over you, so freedom fundamentally limits hierarchy.
This is why the more staunchly traditionalist about race, sex, whatever end up at odds with libertarianism, despite the stereotype of the casually racist gun-nut living innawoods. Strict patriarchy or white nationalism require a group to impose control over another, it's not just a case of whether a private business owner can deny service.
>>70991147
They both follow from each other, I'm afraid. Egalitarianism requires freedom for it to exist, and freedom implies egalitarianism. Frankly, this is why libertarians are just as cancerous as communists or any other modern political stance; they deny the justness and even pragmatism of rigid authority, and abandon it in favor of voluntary association.
>>70977933
I agree with everything in that image.
I am a vegan, cis-gendered, white, able-bodied, male, intelligent, grownasshumanwoman-sexual Earthling.
Every form of life must be respected with it's rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness protected by law. To deny any life these rights is criminal and justice must be brought - via intervention and then education (prison is bad mmmkay).
This means the majority of current human activity on Earth must be altered. No more meat, pets, chopping down forests, digging up mines, jailing druggies, etc.
Enlightened Anarcho-Primitivism. Living in harmony with all life on Earth, taking mushrooms and having orgies. The good life.
>>70991147
Well, the guy has it backwards. Freedom didn't produce equality. Equality produced freedom.
Equality meant that no man had a right to rule any other man, since all men are equally capable of ruling themselves.
The real enemy, is Democracy. Which is partially a byproduct of equality, but which puts in place rulers, which become their own class, above all others.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/rousseau.html
>>70992193
>cont...
"In a pure democracy of equals -- all of whom are, however, considered incapable of self-restraint on behalf of the common welfare, their liberty tending naturally toward evil -- who would be the true guardian and administrator of the laws, the defender of justice and of public order against everyone's evil passions? In a word, who would fulfil the functions of the State?
The best citizens, would be the answer, the most intelligent and the most virtuous, those who understand better than the others the common interests of society and the need, the duty, of everyone to subordinate his own interests to the common good. It is, in fact; necessary for these men to be as intelligent as they are virtuous; if they were intelligent but lacked virtue, they might very well use the public welfare to serve their private interests, and if they were virtuous but lacked intelligence, their good faith would not be enough to save the public interest from their errors. It is therefore necessary, in order that a republic may not perish, that it have available throughout its duration a continuous succession of many citizens possessing both virtue and intelligence.
But this condition cannot be easily or always fulfilled. In the history of every country, the epochs that boast a sizeable group of eminent men are exceptional, and renowned through the centuries. Ordinarily, within the precincts of power, it is the insignificant, the mediocre, who predominate, and often, as we have observed in history, it is vice and bloody violence that triumph. We may therefore conclude that if it were true, as the theory of the so-called rational or liberal State clearly postulates, that the preservation and durability of every political society depend upon a succession of men as remarkable for their intelligence as for their virtue, there is not one among the societies now existing that would not have ceased to exist long ago."
>>70992342
>cont..
"Let us assume that, in an ideal society, in each period, there were a sufficient number of men both intelligent and virtuous to discharge the principal functions of the State worthily. Who would seek them out, select them, and place the reins of power in their hands? Would they themselves, aware of their intelligence and their virtue, take possession of the power?
This was done by two sages of ancient Greece, Cleobulus and Periander; notwithstanding their supposed great wisdom, the Greeks applied to them the odious name of tyrants. But in what manner would such men seize power? By persuasion, or perhaps by force? If they used persuasion, we might remark that he can best persuade who is himself persuaded, and the best men are precisely those who are least persuaded of their own worth. Even when they are aware of it, they usually find it repugnant to press their claim upon others, while wicked and mediocre men, always satisfied with themselves, feel no repugnance in glorifying themselves.
But let us even suppose that the desire to serve their country had overcome the natural modesty of truly worthy men and induced them to offer themselves as candidates for the suffrage of their fellow citizens. Would the people necessarily accept these in preference to ambitious, smooth-tongued, clever schemers?
If, on the other hand, they wanted to use force, they would, in the first place, have to have available a force capable of overcoming the resistance of an entire party. They would attain their power through civil war which would end up with a disgruntled opposition party, beaten but still hostile. To prevail, the victors would have to persist in using force. Accordingly the free society would have become a despotic state, founded upon and maintained by violence, in which you might possibly find many things worthy of approval -- but never liberty."
>>70992193
Why is it bad that rulers be above others? Such is the nature of rulers! There are those above to be obeyed, and those below to be ordered.
The problem of democracy is not that it creates authority, but that the justness of that authority is subject to the fickle will of the plebe.
>>70992122
cont.
That image is a bit fallacious though.
"Equal but different" I think is a better encapsulation of a healthy politic.
A big person needs more calories of food per day than a small person, say.
If they receive the same amount of calories of food per day (from Big Brother ;P ) then is "Equality" happening?
If Yes: Equality of inputs. eg. Every human must wear size 10 clothes because we are equal.
If No: Equality doesn't refer to inputs but outputs. True "Equality" in this case would mean that the big person receives more calories of food per day than the small person.
Equality means that each person is well fed, not that they receive the same amount of food.
Equality means each person has 'suitable' (ie. customised to their personal needs) housing, not that they all have the same shitty house/apartment.
Equality means that the workers own their work, not the capitalists, and they freely decided that they and their community would be most well off if they intelligently coordinated a economic plan to output for the needs of the community, matching the workers abilities and desired expressions to the needs of the individuals that make up the community as a whole.
It's all very basic stuff once you get it.
>>70992122
>Living in harmony with the Earth
Does the savage lion or the violent shark live in harmony with the Earth? Does the bacterium or virus which bring diseased death live in harmony with the Earth?
Or do you mean harmony with your perception of how Earth and nature OUGHT to be, a perpetual eden free of strife and struggle?
Mother Earth a bitchy crack whore who takes her children's, our, lunch money so she can feed her habit. She slaps her children around and sometimes kills them, in the case of old brother tyranosaur. In response, we are strong because of her, and we tear up her flesh and drink our fill of metal and oil from her bleeding body.
Hippies and edinists are the single most anti-nature, the single most deluded group of people on this bloody blue marble of ours.
>>70993161
>The problem of democracy is not that it creates authority, but that the justness of that authority is subject to the fickle will of the plebe.
I would certainly agree that the people themselves are the weak-link in all forms of government. But at the same time, it isn't as if the ruling class doesn't use their positions to manipulate the common people through propaganda from the mass media, and indoctrination through public education.
Democracy is controlled with information. Thus whoever controls information, controls Democracy.
Or honestly, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thus, authority either is evil, or will inevitably become evil.
>>70962704
To attack egalitarianism is to point out demographic differences. They're programmed to have their brains shut off once they hear xism.
>>70962704
Because most of "the right" you've grown up around is nothing more than controlled ideological opposition
The issue is that people have misconstrued equal under the law is the same as equal in all other regards.
>>70991753
>justness and even pragmatism of rigid authority
Barring first-principles libertarianism, the problem with dictators is how many Augustus Caesar's we have versus Caligula's. In principle I am OK with a benevolent dictatorship, but what are the odds of those two words working together?
>>70994025
But is the control and manipulation of the plebes necessarily evil, however?
The people, in addition to being people, are tools, they are a resource to be conserved and utilized to the best of their energies. You cannot mobilize a nation for any purpose if the culture or society of that nation is lacking the will to do so.
And power does not necessarily corrupt, nor does absolute power necessarily corrupt; rather, corrupt individuals seek out power. If there is one change that I would make that would likely solve a vast majority of democracy's problems, it is that high crimes and felonies while holding public office, ANY public office, is subject to mandatory capitol punishment.
>>70962704
Women have the majority vote so if if you stop pretending people are equal you'll hurt women's feelings and vote for the other person.
>>70964621
Pretty much this
If someone fails with equal opportunity, and no external pressures and factors, it's on their own accord.
>>70994515
But is the volatile and ultimately directionless nature of voluntary association any more preferable than a Caligula?
True, it does come with material prosperity, but you trade the will of an evil or inept ruler for nothing more than the dumb, blind natural processes of human social interaction, processes that extend no further than a lifespan in scope and consume without thought or direction.
Even a poor ruler can be guided and manipulated by a good advisor, but who can be said to guide and direct a turbulent, "free" society beyond celebrities and demagogues?
>>70993979
Oh yeah, it's the hippies fault. Totally, dude
>>70994544
>But is the control and manipulation of the plebes necessarily evil, however?
Necessary evil for what end? Materialism? Power?
And aren't you really just saying, "Isn't slavery a necessary evil?"
>>70988450
He was not voted into power. He was appointed temporary chancellor by Hindenberg.
>>70962704
I do attack egalitarianism. At every opportunity.
>>70995679
Indeed, some women look better brushing their teeth than others.
>>70996299
I disagree.
