[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/lounge/ - Lounge

The Wizard's Lounge
Email
Comment
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1658159654210.png (630.19 KB, 640x470, 64:47, FSuoD-TWIAAYFIq.png) ImgOps iqdb

 No.292420[View All]

THINGS WILL GET MUCH WORSE BEFORE THEY BEGIN TO GET BETTER

Previous thread: https://archive.ph/1la3R
281 posts and 32 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.294215

>>294196

I always say antinatalism as leftist at heart. Right wing values life. Leftism is okay with abortion and euthanasia and just leans in that direction. Antinatalism is like the final step of progressivism and tolerance.

 No.294216

>>294165

Anything specific you don't like? Finland is a NEET paradise, and it didn't virtue signal like Sweden letting in too many migrants without thinking. They run the country humanely and well, I've been there myself and it feels slower and laid back.

Maybe its the NATO stuff that bothers you, if so I don't know what to say, I don't think Finland is gonna invade Russia ever, but can't say the same for Russia invading other countries so better be prepared for self defense and most Finns want it.

 No.294217

>>294128

I think its inevitable but it could be a very long time before it happens, I see it getting fought against and delayed. What happens when people see it as a better alternative to some of the shit jobs. The rich are gonna gear up to fight it from happening rather than make jobs less shit. You will see Tucker Carlson on FOX calling it a test pilot for socialism and saying that Americans don't want it and it won't work. CNN will get told by their rich owners to run a story that UBI is racist against minorities somehow.

 No.294220

File: 1663493099833.jpg (147.24 KB, 750x979, 750:979, 1663483815661720.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

How the fuck is this dumb bitch prime minister?

 No.294221

>>294216
female bad, it ok if very bad men do very bad thing forever. haha, me winning da sex volleyball tourney. ook ook!

 No.294222

File: 1663495613116.jpg (258.93 KB, 2048x2048, 1:1, ad21d47cb9a56cbe92a55a4132….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Look at all the simps come out of the woodwork to defend some used up whore that doesn't have the slightest idea of how the world works.

This is why your countries think it's a good idea to import a bunch of low IQ subhumans as population replacement because it has people like this dumb fucking whore running it.

 No.294225

>>294222
>implying females or democracy are allowed to make real decisions
keep suckin that corpo schlong,ya super useful moron

 No.294226

>>294225
There is no grand conspiracy.

It's just a bunch of incompetent retards like Sanna Marin running things in a gynocentric society.

Do you think she has any groundbreaking and revolutionary thought running through her head? She's a fucking incompetent retard.

There doesn't have to be a grand conspiracy when you have people like this running your countries to the ground.

 No.294228

>>294226
it is amazing, your stupidity i mean. you have to cry about simps or something just as retarded, like you think some grand defense of female politicians has been made. nah, you are such a gay loser that you refuse to acknowledge the thousands of years of damage done to the world by male leaders. you are a fucking idiot. there are no teams decided by gender.

 No.294229

File: 1663498620191.png (269.81 KB, 500x500, 1:1, download.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>294228
Yeah, just 2,000 years of European superiority and civilization just goes "poof" within 100 years of giving rights to succubi.

You're dumb and retarded.

 No.294230

>>294226
Not that guy, not Finn either, but do you have some concrete examples of what this succubus has done to fuck up the country?

 No.294232

>>294220
>inb4 rightoids brigade the thread

>This Prime Minister is a perpetual scandal machine. It just took forever for the foreign press to notice because a) Finland is such a small country and because b) the Western press doesn't want to notice anything bad in the first pro-NATO left-wing government in Finnish history. NATO needs a left-wing puppet more than a right-wing puppet since the right-wing is 100 % pro-NATO anyway.


>Foreign media isn't even reporting the real scandal which is that a) while she was out dancing Finland was negotiating with Germany over the most financially disastrous deal ever made in Finnish history (Fortum/Uniper energy deal which turned into disaster due to Russia shutting off gas) and b) her government actually banned dancing during covid so this is some spectacular hypocrisy from the leader who spent 2 years telling us that it's inappropriate to have fun while she was having her wild parties.

 No.294238

>>294229
>Yeah, just 2,000 years of European superiority and civilization just goes "poof" within 100 years of giving rights to succubi.
Rome fell in the 5th century and Spain was conquered by the Moors in the 8th century, so European history isn't a linear process

>>294216
>Maybe its the NATO stuff that bothers you, if so I don't know what to say, I don't think Finland is gonna invade Russia ever, but can't say the same for Russia invading other countries so better be prepared for self defense and most Finns want it.
NATO treats any attack on a member nation as an attack on all, so Finland would be obligated to respond. If that response involved stationing US missiles in Finland to gain nuclear primacy over Moscow then that will result in a straightforward nuclear exchange. It's not a matter of self defense but collective defense

 No.294239

I despise right-wingers so much. I just want to hunt them down and torture them. They represent everything that characterizes normals and their thinking: elitism, worshipping those of high status, stepping on anyone who is a minority or different from them, falling for stupid meme values without any critical thinking, etc.

Right-wing is about masturbating to hierarchies always and so it is always capital-worship or capitalism. It doesn't matter if it is fascism, monarchy or feudalism, if it is about respecting hierarchy in society then it is capitalism, nobody ever ruled in society who was poor or low status. If you want to stick to bootlicking then you will end up with capitalism in one form or another. Right-wing is money worship and materialism at its core.
In contrast, the left is about using revolution, force, violence to determine who should rule. If you ask me that is a much more just way of deciding who should rule society. To make money you need to be a well-adjusted normalfag and so right-wing is normal-worship. To use violence you can be anyone, as long as you can lift your hands and can walk you have a chance.

As someone who values asceticism and spirituality I find my ideal system in leftism. I'm not a marxist because I'm not a materialist but still, I'm a communist and anarchist at heart. I don't understand anyone who claims to be an outcast, outsider, weirdo in any way or wizard and is a right-winger. I mean, you really don't see the contradictions in your worldviews? Right-wing is pro-society and for those who are well-adjusted enough to make a living on their own through lawful means. It isn't for poor NEETs.

>>294238
>Rome fell in the 5th century and Spain was conquered by the Moors in the 8th century, so European history isn't a linear process
Roman culture didn't end in the 5th century, it survived through historical texts and such. Entropy is another right-wing meme. Linear progress is an actual thing. You have to be deluded to deny that there is a line of progress from ancient Rome through Christian times to Enlightenment and forward.

 No.294240

>>294239
>Entropy is another right-wing meme. Linear progress is an actual thing. You have to be deluded to deny that there is a line of progress from ancient Rome through Christian times to Enlightenment and forward.
Generally grand historical narratives don't stand up to examination, as we find a multiplicity of local histories in reality. One of the recent developments in history as an academic discipline has been centering previously marginalized histories, as we have come to understand our view of history is shaped by power as much as by actual events

Whatever you imagine entropy to be would similarly be another grand historical narrative, perhaps "natural degeneration" in opposition to your view of "natural progress", the purpose of which is to frame your political opponents within a dialectic you've established. The slogan "I'm on the right side of history" is obviously just rhetoric, but it also reveals what really lies behind it

 No.294241

>>294239
Even libright? You seem to be taking about statright and authright.
Do you feel the same about libright?

 No.294242

>>294232
>>294238
But leftism is about socialism, materialism, YOLO, and being a deceitful scorn by following miserable passions.

You are in a contradiction, except for vegetarianism, animalism and caring for the environment which are the few things with some spirit within the left.

They are delusional, misinformed and their scope of reality omits whatever they do not like. Diffusion and ingenuity are amongst the traits of the left, as it is hypersensitivity, childish rages and hypocrite speech of snowflakiness and letting the nations be ruined with inmigration and other laws that slowly destroy them by generating power and legal vacants which are quickly filled by despicable individuals who know well to deceive them.

Leftism is to promote muslim rapefugees to anger the authright and then discover that they had a point when these rapefugees give you a beating and start overcrowding your land and mistreating you. Ingenuity and childish rages is the left

 No.294245

>>294239
You convienly forgot that leftism represents normgroid shit like collectivism.

 No.294246

File: 1663522859833.jpg (64.11 KB, 640x658, 320:329, 1.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>>294242
>except for vegetarianism, animalism and caring for the environment which are the few things with some spirit within the left.
>"What we today call 'environmentalism' is based on a fear of change. It's based upon a fear of the outcome of human action. And therefore it's not surprising that when you look at the more xenophobic right-wing movements in Europe in the 19th century, including German fascism, it quite often had a very strong environmentalist dynamic to it. The most notorious environmentalists in history were the German Nazis. The Nazis ordered soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed numerous laws on animal rights."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

 No.294247

>>294240
The fact that we have superior technology nowadays proves that we are superior to the romans and other ancient cultures to me. Also, romans didn't have access to the culture of the future (obviously) but we have access to their culture. I don't understand anyone who is critical of progress. Did the greeks and romans send people to the moon? No, our generation did. Did the crusaders build atomic bomb? No, we did.

>>294241
I feel that libertarian right leads back exactly to the mainstream version of right-wing politics in the end. I can respect individual anarchism, whatever it is supposed to be though. But I don't think it is as efficient as the leftist counterpart of it. I support revolutionary plans. You can't make a revolution on your own.

>>294245
Collectivism can be both right or left-wing. It also isn't inherently a bad thing, depends on the form of collective you have to deal with. A collective where resources are distributed equally is a desirable form of collectivism, while a collective like Nazi Germany where only the strong and useful people are rewarded is a negative form of collectivism. Individualism also has various forms, not all of it are good. Middle Or Higher Class capitalist individualism is responsible for Ayn Rand and similar thought systems to hers. I would say that individualism is almost always a negative thing except if you do it leftist libertarian/anarchist style. Because most of the time individualism just means basically "I don't owe you anything, go wageslave yourself". To be a NEET, it is desirable to have a collective we can leech on.

>>294242
Most of you what you say about us could be said about your people too. Being delusional, childish, sensitive, etc.

Neo-liberals don't import refugees to make you butthurt, they do it to gain a steady and big voting base. That is all. These people don't care about ideologies, they just want to stay in power or get power. That said, they aren't even proper leftists, they are just neolib capitalists and radical individualists. They don't want to abolish the state and classes, they just want power and to shape the state in their own image.

>socialism

Is great and one of the best things.
>materialism
Right-wing is more materialistic, it cares about blood, genetics, etc. and wants to centralize all the wealth in the hands of their elite.
>YOLO
It is true, though.
>following miserable passions
That is how humans work, yes.

 No.294249

File: 1663526145730.jpg (58.56 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, takes you to the moon.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>>294247
>Did the greeks and romans send people to the moon? No, our generation did. Did the crusaders build atomic bomb? No, we did.
I'm also a moon program and atomic energy enjoyer, friend

 No.294250

File: 1663527384419.png (48.73 KB, 752x1668, 188:417, left libertarianism.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>294247
Leftism is intrinsically collectivist. There is no such thing as individualist leftism, because leftism necessitates sacrificing a huge portion of your individual rights in exchange for a theoretical reduction in individual responsibility.

 No.294251

>>294229
and who gave them rights? and who gave the jews power? nice selfie btw, world is in the toilet and most leaders are still men but you hyperfixate on some clueless dried-up whore. find better targets for your impotent rage, retard.

 No.294254

>>294250
Seen that pic many times and heard arguments like this too. I'm not individualist in the sense you use this word. I think bourgeois individualism is cancer through and through, you can call it capitalism or whatever you want it, when you try to have a system that is built upon exploitation of people and inequality then it will be shit in the end. Because in this "individualism" only the privileged people can be individuals while others are slaves to them and their capital.

People can be true individuals if they are free and equal only.

 No.294255

>>294254
If I can't even freely decide what to do with my own labor then in what sense am I free? If the 'collective' (ie state) owns my labor, that is, has the exclusive right to decide what my labor can and cannot be used for, then how am I not anything less than slave of the collective?

 No.294256

>>294247
>he fall to history for normgroids meme
You can't cross van allen belt without advanced tech

 No.294260

>>294239
>using revolution, force, violence to determine who should rule
>I'm a communist and anarchist at heart
so you are an anarchist that wants to use violent revolution to rule others? peculiar…

>I mean, you really don't see the contradictions in your worldviews?

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

 No.294261

>>294225
uh yes, females have social dominance over men because men are white knight cretins who bend over backwards to please them (evident by all media being feminist tainted crap)
retard

 No.294262

>>294228
>there are no teams decided by gender.
except succubi see themselves as a class identity and view men as the opposing team, like when a succubus falsely accuses a man all the other succubi come out of the woodwork to defend her even when shes proven malicious (amber turd) - men dont have that kind of solidarity, so yes there are teams decided by gender, clueless tard

 No.294264

>>294255
The collective isn't the state. The state by definition is a small elite who govern larger society. And nobody would own your labor, the difference would be that instead of slaving away for your capitalist boss you would be doing productive work for others who in turn would do their work for you. Obviously work has to be done but exploitation is a feature of the capitalist meatgrinder society. You wouldn't be forced to work any more than you are forced to work nowadays. The difference lies in solidarity. In capitalism solidarity is discouraged as it based on competition. In anarchism you would help others and they would help you in turn. You wouldn't need to have a bunch of paper called money to prove that you are worthy of the help.

>>294260
I want to use violence to make a world where nobody rules anyone.

 No.294265

>>294264
>The collective isn't the state
So then who would go around enforcing the arbitrary edict that people can't own capital or enter into work contracts for a wage?
>And nobody would own your labor, the difference would be that instead of slaving away for your capitalist boss you would be doing productive work for others who in turn would do their work for you
If I want to sell my labor to someone in exchange for an income and your organization uses force to prevent us from entering into that agreement then yes, I am being stripped of the right to my labor. If I own my labor then I get to decide what to do with my labor, not you.
>I want to use violence to make a world where nobody rules anyone.
If you're imposing your will over others using violence then you are ruling them.

 No.294267

>>294265
>who would go around enforcing the arbitrary edict that people can't own capital or enter into work contracts for a wage
The people?
>right to labor
You mean right to exploitation/slavery? So you are free to decide to be…not free?
>If you're imposing your will over others using violence then you are ruling them.
Violence is the natural way of life and natural law is the only law there is. People settling their disputes with violence isn't forcing your will onto others, it is just natural law and might makes right.

 No.294268

>>294267
>So you are free to decide to be…not free?
Yes, that's how freedom works. If I want to exchange my free time for money, that's none of your business. Because I own my free time, I own my labor, not you, and not "the people".

Please explain to me how exactly your system of violently forcing people to act the way you want them to will work exactly. You claim that a centralized government would not exist and then you immediately start talking about how violence will be used to quell dissent. How exactly do you see this working? Is it just a fantasy where you're an omnipotent god or something and are able to just personally kill and torture the people you dislike? Or do you seriously believe that whims of a violent mob will perfectly align with your utopian ethos?

 No.294270

>>294264
Your idea of a money-less society where people have no bosses but just work towards a common goal could perhaps work in a village where everyone gets along. In fact that kind of community is common in many parts of the world. The problem is that it doesn't scale well. Once you have a town with thousands of people, where there are people starting businesses which compete with other businesses, and need to hire workers who have the option to work for their competition, then capitalism is needed to balance things out. You call it exploitation, but capitalism only results in exploitation when companies are so powerful they can bribe the government to act on their behalf, or they have a complete monopoly so workers have no power to negotiate. So long as there's sufficient competition, and workers are willing to bargain with their employers, they won't be exploited.

 No.294271

>>294268
So you dream about continuing the cuckold life as the drone of some capitalist boss you can serve faithfully. Huh.

I'm not talking about any unorganized mob, I am talking about organized and planned revolution led by the proletarians of this system. We will uphold the ideal and will persuade people to see things our way. It's either our way or the rope they will get. To keep the body healthy you have to get rid of diseased parts.

>>294270
Capitalism is built on exploitation because it purposefully creates tension among people of the proletariat. It is about "competition", you need to make one worker or poor person hate the other one in order to keep them from uniting and taking charge of things. Classic divide and conquer. Not everyone wants to slave away under some capitalist boss who laughs in your face while you are working as hard as you can just to be able to survive while he has easy access to resources and comforts because he has more money than you.

The purpose of work should be to be constructive and useful for the collective, not to earn wealth for a small elite of people.

 No.294272

>>294271
It doesn't sound like this new society will have any meaningful benefits for the average person. You're just dreaming of taking control of the authoritarian centralization of violence for your own selfish ends. And given how bitter and vindictive you come off as you'd probably manage to hurt even more people than the current people in charge, which really saying something.

 No.294274

>>294271
>It is about "competition", you need to make one worker or poor person hate the other one in order to keep them from uniting and taking charge of things.
Maybe in Victorian England it was so. In a more developed society however, the competition goes both ways. Yes workers compete with each other for jobs and promotions, but companies also compete for workers, and are willing to offer better pay and benefits to get them. Just look at how the labor market is today. And of course workers can have solidarity. While a crony capitalist government breaks up organized labor, a pro-worker government promotes it. But to force companies to pay more, or worse yet to be collectively owned, will always have unintended consequences.

>Not everyone wants to slave away under some capitalist boss who laughs in your face while you are working as hard as you can just to be able to survive while he has easy access to resources and comforts because he has more money than you.

If you don't like your boss then quit your job, until you find a boss who respects you. And other people will do likewise, until the shitty boss can't find workers and goes bankrupt. Again this kind of thing is happening right now. The only reason it doesn't happen quicker is because interference from the government/central bank keeps bad businesses afloat.

>The purpose of work should be to be constructive and useful for the collective, not to earn wealth for a small elite of people.

I agree. But utilizing the free market is essential for that. To take extreme measures like collectivizing production, setting price controls, or heaven forbid eliminating currency altogether, causes extreme disturbances which doesn't allow the economy to function efficiently. It is far more effective for the government to crack down on rentierism, excessive hoarding of resources, and to encourage more beneficial industries, while otherwise allowing the free market to function uninterrupted.

 No.294278

>>294274
I never see this "competition" between employers for workers, so I guess you are talking about workers who are specialized for some obscure thing. Ordinary manual labor workers certainly don't get treated with respect or receive decent wages, I'm speaking in their name, they are the actual proletariat. I think by workers you thought of people with university degrees and or again, people who can do or possess some obscure skill. But I consider people like that to be bourgeois since they get special treatment. If you never enrolled in higher education or didn't learn a specific job for whatever reason you end up being treated like shit whether you flip burgers or wash cars.

>But to force companies to pay more, or worse yet to be collectively owned, will always have unintended consequences.

The consequences being that Mr.Boss will have less capital to spend on retarded luxuries while his workers will end up better.

>If you don't like your boss then quit your job, until you find a boss who respects you. And other people will do likewise, until the shitty boss can't find workers and goes bankrupt.

This never happened, I hope you know it. Workers are extremely vulnerable in capitalism, that is the cornerstone of capitalism itself. Real life shows us that workers are more likely to make compromises and to lower their expectations than the employers. Because they are forced to wageslave under bad circumstances, the alternative being starving or poverty. Of course, if you are a quantum physicist, lawyer or programmer then you wouldn't know the harsh world of the exploited laborer.

>free market

>economy
Idols only, created for the purpose of ensuring the existence of the higher classes who already start life on easy mode and possess lots of capital.

>>294272
>any meaningful benefits
Not being ordered around and treated like a slave by some trust fund baby is one huge benefit. Getting more resources and gaining economic equality isn't a benefit? Gaining more freedom isn't a benefit?

>You're just dreaming of taking control of the authoritarian centralization of violence for your own selfish ends.

Selfish, so like the people who make others wageslave for them nowadays? Everyone is selfish, some are just more ignorant and don't realize what is good for them. I know what is good for me and I want that.

>And given how bitter and vindictive you come off as you'd probably manage to hurt even more people than the current people in charge, which really saying something.

That is fine with me, I don't want to create a peaceful world, I want a world I think is just in my views. Nobody cares about me in the current system so I don't care about those who belong to the middle class and up there either. The blood of the rich and privileged will create a fine soil for the future socialism that is to come.

 No.294279

>>294278
People are still going to be treated like a slave under your system. Actually they'll be treated like a slave more than they currently are because they won't have any actual freedom to decide what to do with their lives, they'll just be forced to obey you because you're pointing a literal gun at their heads.
>I know what is good for me and I want that.
then allow other people to decide what's good for them instead of trying to bully and threaten them into following your ideal of how to live.

 No.294286

>>294279
How will they be slaves if they will be free to do anything (as long as it doesn't hurt others) and have equality? You are a slave in normal society under a state and laws, if you decide to do things which don't hurt anyone but were deemed to be immoral by the creators of the law then you will be punished regardless.

Nobody would care about you wanting to slave away under a master all your life but it would have a negative effect on the collective ultimately. You would be serving some exploiter and that guy would slowly end gaining power (thanks to you and other sheep like you). Eventually he would want to impose his will on everyone and would form a circlejerk, church, political party, nation or state so he would be trouble. Better get rid of people like that and to punish/re-educate people like you.

 No.294289

>>294286
>Nobody would care about you wanting to slave away under a master all your life but it would have a negative effect on the collective ultimately
Using this logic you can justify practically any arbitrary tyrannical law under the pretext that people are harming your vision for what the collective should look like. It's nonsensical logic completely divorced from any coherent moral axiom. Harming the collective means dumping toxins into a river or spree killing. Creating a culture that you personally find distasteful is not harm.

 No.294290

>>294289
How is it not harmful to encourage bad behavior? I mean slaving away and master-slave relationships between people? The purpose of anarchy is to make people equal and free. If ranks are allowed to form again then there is no anarchy. Simple.

 No.294291

>>294290
Because you don't own the collective opinion. If someone says something you don't like or even just does something you don't like, that's not violating any of your rights in any way. You obviously expect to be able to think and speak and make decisions for yourself in the ways in which you see fit so long as you aren't hurting anyone, so why don't you apply this expectation consistently and fairly to others and let them live the way they want? If the only way you can envision persuading the collective to think the way you want them to think via straight-out murdering people who disagree with you then there's something very wrong with your worldview.
>If ranks are allowed to form again then there is no anarchy
And what do you call it when you and your goons murder and torture a huge swathe of the population if not hierarchy and rank? It honestly seems as though your moral justifications for this are just post-hoc pretext to justify a base desire to cause death and pain for people you don't like. None of the logic you're putting forth here makes sense.

 No.294297

This thread did hit bump limit btw, need new one.

 No.294299

>>294291
Using violence is natural, ranks and hierarchies aren't.
And you seriously don't understand why someone who promotes anti-freedom and anti-equality attitude should be eliminated from an anarchist society? It's quite obvious why. If we had an anarchist utopia then we wouldn't want to fall back into the same mistakes and "sins" of past societies, would we?

Or do you think anarchism will just happen suddenly *poof* like that without any effort, violence or bloodshed? I've bad news for you, it won't come to us, we have to make it happen through force. Of course you have to kill undesirable elements and crush any opposition in your way, that is the requirement of any society before it can be "born".

 No.294301

>>294299
How do you use violence against someone without creating a hierarchical relationship between you and your victim?

 No.294305

>>294301
He is free to use violence and so am I too. That is equality. Ideally, it would be a 1-on-1 duel or fight as it is the most direct way of handling conflicts between men but stealth attacks and such are acceptable too. There are no rules in war.

I don't create hierarchy, if someone robs you on the street do they create hierarchy? They take your money and go on their way. Or if you can, you stop them and fuck them up. There is no hierarchy involved in violence, hierarchy emerges from civilization, the use of money and artificial ranks like between guard - prisoner, cop - average person, teacher - student, etc.

 No.294306

>>294305
In that case, then in what sense does any society have hierarchy? You're always free to just disobey and use violence, which according to you completely negates the hierarchy intrinsic in physically dominating someone.

>hierarchy emerges from civilization, the use of money and artificial ranks like between guard - prisoner, cop - average person, teacher - student, etc.

The only reason why any of those ranks have any sort of power whatsoever is because they're backed up by violence. If the state wasn't allowed to lay a finger on you do you really think that "police officer" would be a title that held any power? What are they going to do, say mean things at you until you obey them? Every one of the examples you gave is an example of a relationship based on the ability of one party to wield violence over the other.

 No.294324

>>294306
You aren't "free" to disobey unless you want to go to jail. You are free to jump off a building sure but you won't do it without a parachute, right?

The State is something unnatural, it is based not on violence, you are wrong there, it is based on the spook of money and private property. Without deluding others into believing that they are better off serving you there is no state. The state is an illusion, a lie.

 No.294337

does anybody know who said that one quote about how white men see a forest as a chapel or something and a jew just sees it as something to be commodified? he was one of hitler's inner circle i think, but i cant find the quote off of this information.


[View All]
[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]