/wiz/ - Wizardry

wrote this on /b/ a while ago, then the thread 404ed almost immediately after.
might as well just repost instead of rewrite.

I think I've beome one of those "NPC" everyone's talking about. Nothing matters to me but earning money to support my family.

was gonna make a long reply but not sure if i feel like that seeing as you are the egoist nigger probably. i agree on many other things (not all), but i really feel that this is a dumb belief especially after mentioning your opinion on diet. i also feel that it isnt interesting conversation to just agree or nitpick small things.
yes, living people are acting for self-interest, but i would not consider that "egoist." maybe we just have a stipulation in definition. to me, an egoist is someone who thinks charity is stupid so long as it doesnt benefit themselves, thinks they are the protagonist or (a) god, fancies themselves to be the center of the universe, etc. self-aggrandizing shit. it is possible to do things for others with no strings attached. people have extended the courtesy to me and i have to them. if you think acting at all in self-interest (like eating to survive) is egotism, i strongly disagree.

>left-libertarian
oxymoron

>>195641
>18 | Anarcho-Libertarian | ☭ | materialists DNI | Enby | trans-theist | vegan | ACAB | smash the fash | LGBT ally | EAT THE RICH | Virgo | Feelings Before facts |

>Anime_succubi_pics_dot_com_1082412

You are on the same mental level as 95% of all American college graduates. The fact that you even wrote so much about yourself touting your progressive politics and asserting how DIFFERENT you are from us goo-brains is the most 'egoist" thing you could have done and yet here you are claiming individualism. You are a cookie-cutter normalfag and probably dye your hair some sort of rainbow color.

We care who wizards are, we like to here about them, but you're literally just "modern lefty indoctrinate who thinks he's special". No thread on /wiz/ deserved to die because you needed your daily fix of telling everyone how much you hate ebil nazis and want us to just eat the bugs already. You don't care about us either unless we describe how we are exactly like you in every way. That's just how you people are. There are multi-lingual PDF documents written by sane people warning those from other cultures how to identify people like you OTI so they don't wind up interacting with your ilk and being poisoned by your faggotry.

T. Racist, raw-meat eating, exercising, material-collecting, moral absolutist esoteric Hitlerite nationalist who donates to police charities and politicians I agree with.

Labels after labels. Think for yourself a little bit

I'm a maggot

nobody cares

>>195641
>I think morality is subjective
>I'm an anarchist
false.

Absolutely cringe

Disappointing replies, I had higher expectations for you. Seems like actual intelligent wizards migrated from here or are too tired to bother posting now. That or years of image board posting destroyed your brains finally and you think everything is just "labels" >>195659

>>195671
Anarchy and morality are kind of mutually exclusive, despite many anarchist scholars claiming to be moralists.

>>195651
>it is possible to do things for others with no strings attached
Nobody ever helped others out of pure concern for others. Altruism and giving charity are like drugs, they make you feel good and special for helping others and so you indulge in these behaviors. But the root of the motivation is always the ego.
>an egoist is someone who thinks charity is stupid so long as it doesnt benefit themselves, thinks they are the protagonist or (a) god, fancies themselves to be the center of the universe, etc. self-aggrandizing shit
This is true for everyone though. Like I said, there are non-material rewards for helping others, for example gaining the respect of others and making yourself feel good for being a "hero". I'm not questioning that people can help others, only that why they do it. The reason is always egoism in some form.

>>195655
>being this butthurt because someone thinks differently from you

Aiming to achieve no opinions like when I was a child and truly happy

>>195676
as always, you are stuck too far up your own ass to entertain anything from another's perspective and so you have to project your egotism onto everybody else. if helping others got people high, then everyone would do it a lot more. i am sure some people do it to inflate their egos, but i still consider myself a shit person before and after. i dont get anything out of it. life sucks for most people whether or not they can admit it, so it doesnt hurt to be helpful even if you get nothing in return.
also maybe your topic just isnt interesting and the problem lies with you instead of everybody else. good chat, bud.

>>195685
>if helping others got people high, then everyone would do it a lot more
They already do it a lot? Volunteer work, charity and etc are mainstream and popular things, they have always been.

>i still consider myself a shit person before and after. i dont get anything out of it
Except the fact that you can pat yourself on the back for reducing suffering a little in this old cruel world? I don't know why you feel the need to be so pretentious to portray yourself as someone completely devoid of ego and self.

>also maybe your topic just isnt interesting and the problem lies with you instead of everybody else.
Or maybe people here lack genuine, honest opinions these days.

>>195686
i knew you would say that i get off on it when i only have to mention it because of your incredibly retarded assumption about everybody else being just as self-centered as you are. it isn't boasting to illustrate that there is a stark difference in temperament between us. it's not even to say that yours is objectively bad (of course i personally think so, however), but that you are plain wrong about every single person being an egoist for ever acting in self-interest. i am sure you are the samefag who thinks someone loves life and loves the taste of shit so long as they havent committed suicide yet, but there is indeed a preservation instinct innate in most that is separate from their conscious mind and so people are compelled to do things like eating to avoid completely wasting away. i actually hate being complimented when i do favors for people. i prefer if less people like me because then nothing is expected of me and it is one less attachment to bog others' lives down with.
cool bait tho, anyway enjoy masturbating your fragile, pathetic little ego since clearly nobody else is going to do that. you are autistic in a bad way. funny you call me pretentious with all the stupid shit that you post.

Every opinion, philosophy, political view, or else, is just pure cope to deal with reality.

>>195687
Everyone is an egoist, this is true simply because you are locked into your own perspective of things. You can't "step out of yourself" and be objective or completely altruistic for no reason whatsoever. In your case it sounds like you are a masochist or have low self-esteem and so you are just eager to please everyone around you and to help in any way you can. Which isn't a good thing, btw. This female-like attitude results in letting worthless people do whatever they want and letting them get away with everything. The nature of this world is one of constant fight, you have to keep others in check and others will keep you in check and so some order will be born out of this.

>>195688
>cope
I came to hate this word recently. Maybe because every single post on chans or otherwise is filled with this buzzword. Deconstructing things can be fun but it is a cope to label everything as a cope ultimately. There will come a time when you have to decide where you stand and what you deem worthy enough to fight for.

I believe I am a good wiz imp and I am blessing all the wizzies with heightened fortunes in this wiz thread.

>>195676
>Anarchy and morality are kind of mutually exclusive
so if i dont believe rulership and slavery are subjectively okay then i cant be an anarchist?

>>195693
It's more like this: if you aren't even allowed to have your own values then how are you free? Objective values imply forcing your own values onto everyone else. Therefore moralists can't be anarchists.

>>195641
I'm just bumbling about and changing my opinions to whatever helps me most at a given moment, I can't really hold proper beliefs anymore.

national socialist. everything in our life is shit because the bad guys side won the biggest war.

>>195719
youre free to have whatever retarded beliefs you want, but you dont get to have whatever ideas you want and call yourself an anarchist. if you want to enslave people and rob people then you are not an anarchist, you share the exact same mindset as a dictator. a true anarchist knows that it is wrong to aggress upon others, and it is right to defend against others aggressing upon you. this is the basis on anarchy because this is what prevents "archy" or statism from manifesting. you cannot be an anarchist and believe in moral relativism because that is precisely what statism is. the idea that morality can change based on the time period, or if certain people sign a paper, or if youre wearing a certain uniform. if you believe that any of that is true then you cannot refute statism at all, and thus even if you are an anarchist theres no fucking point to it.

>>195676
>being this butthurt because someone thinks differently from you

I'm butthurt that someone who developed their worldview through community college textbooks has found our little community of odd-thinkers and schizoids and decided to muck it up with his juvenile attitude towards life. We're no geniuses, scholars, or poets - but you're a normalfag through-and-through so of course you're not welcome here. I'd dare to say you even use Apple hardware.

>>195731
fucking what?

>>195731
I’m not white, not even related to europeans but really agree that if nazis had won the ww2 this world would’ve been more civilized and advanced.

>>195647
>wizard
>having a family

You're on the wrong website.

>>195732
Look kiddo, you are probably one of the many "anarchists" or "leftists" nowadays who preach morality and pacifism but you must know that original anarchism had nothing to do with that at all. Anarchism was always a revolutionary ideology like communism - the two are closely related after all. Propaganda of the deed and all that. You don't get to pick out whatever you like from anarchists and go with that. It's clear you are a pacifist libertarian at most and not an actual anarchist. If you were an anarchist you wouldn't bow before universal "thou shalt not" morality which is always cattle morality. If you are an anarchist that implies you hold different views from mainstream morality and therefore you are a moral relativist.

I don't want to enslave anyone or want any kind of state. I want to be free, which implies being free to DO ANYTHING I want, including robbing or threatening rich people to give me their stuff. You are pacifist libertarian again, not an anarchist. If you were an anarchist you would know that the state claims monopoly on the rights to violence and that is why it so hypocrite and rotten to have a state at all. People should be allowed to get whatever they can, by any means, for themselves.

If you preach objective morals you end with a state in the end, ironically, because you want to tell others what they can and can't do.

>>195733
Joke's on you, never went to college. Being a nazi is okay for "odd-thinkers and schizoids" but being an anarchist isn't allowed? Despite the fact that nazis and right-wing extremists are the biggest normals out there. Hmm…

>>195735
>>195731
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_triangle_(badge)
>was an identification badge used in Nazi concentration camps to mark prisoners designated asozial ("asocial")[1][2] and arbeitsscheu ("work-shy").
>The designation also included alcoholics, homeless, beggars, nomads,…, many registered or deemed mentally-ill and intellectually disabled

Oh so wizard-friendly would it be to be worked to death in some concentration comp by Hans Übernormal.

There is a wide variety of political and philosophical ideologies out there. Why do you have to pick the one that is anti-NEET and anti-wizardly the most?

>>195737
>I want to be free, which implies being free to DO ANYTHING I want, including robbing or threatening rich people to give me their stuff

You ARE free to do that. And just as you are free to do that, other people are free to stop you, or to pay others to stop you. Dumb and silly person.

I agree with most of what OP says, except that i am very materialist, i like money and i like comfort, money gives me secutity, privacy and freedom to do what i what, why the hell i would be anti-materialist?

And i am kind of hedonist, in a sense that i don't deny the pleasures of life. Its different from the "normalfag, social hedonism", but still hedonism.

I flirt with the of reducing meat comsumption, however and never will be vegan though. Vegetarianism is acceptable but i still think i will never be vegetarian, but i strive to reduce meat consumption.

The rest… Yeah, i kind of agree.

>>195738
No, according to laws and the legal system I'm not free to do that at all and the state would gladly punish me if I decided to act on these things. The state must go since it treats people differently, if someone is rich then he starts with a better position in life than others.

True freedom and equality come with the death of the state when only your strength counts, not how much money (worthless paper without the state) you own.

Under a state if you decide to try to redistribute things the police, people who wouldn't otherwise have any business or problem with you but they have now because they are paid with money to be the hitmen of the state, would stop you with all its force.

>>195739
>why the hell i would be anti-materialist
Materialism is a boring worldview. Also, I can never shake the skepticism from myself, that things aren't as they appear to be. Plus idealism can be combined nicely with a personality that enjoys "escapism" like anime, movies and books. I like to think life isn't different at all from anime in the sense that what we call reality is ultimately just a reflection of something higher, a higher plane.

>hedonism vs asceticism
What you mean by hedonism? Masturbation and eating? Hedonism originally referred to bodily, sensual pleasure only. I meant my asceticism in the sense that I prefer other enjoyments over bodily pleasures like eating, sleeping, drinking alcohol or jerking off. I don't live like a monk but I value reading an entertaining book or watching a good movie over masturbation and eating pizza.

>>195740
They were free to form a team to deal with you, so they did. Why do you want "freedoms" for you but not for everyone else? If you're doing something with a friend that infringes on what someone else wants to do, do you desist? It's their freedom to do that. And it's their freedom to kill you if you disagree. It's your freedom to ask your friend for help to save you. You've now commissioned an authority, as you are free to.

"The State", or, the elected officials representing the collective peoples, would try to punish you because they decided it was in their best interest as a society. You were free to oppose, free to vote against, and free to advocate for a change in the system they decided upon. And still, you are free to rob and kill them, but if you want to get away with it you'll have to outgun, outmaneuver, and outsmart the greater collective.

You're literally trying to argue for your right to eat the rich and not have anyone who disagrees try stopping you. I was joking when I said that, maybe I gave you a bad idea. You're not an anarchist and now it's evident that you didn't partake in post-secondary education. You're a nigger. A pant-shitting, faithless, cop-hating, society-wrecking, murderous, poor, uneducated dindu.

>>195741
You conveniently left out the fact that it's just not me, there is a great number of people who are dissatisfied with states and politicians and who benefit in zero ways from the existence of law, order and states. Your favorite and dear rich people only happen to have any sort of "power" because the state exists. Without the state and without the spook of money and status they are nothing but a bunch of weak, cowardly pussies.

Your definition of freedom is hilarious. You aren't free to do something if there are severe negative consequences to that thing (unless someone wants to die actively or to get locked up then of course he won't do that thing). By your definition anarchists should accept the existence of the state, lol, you are beyond hope, man.

>You're literally trying to argue for your right to eat the rich and not have anyone who disagrees try stopping you.
Quite obviously. I don't deny it. Why shouldn't I hate those who are responsible for my oppression and those who only want to exploit people like me? I'm not a cuckold like you, I'm not content with slaving away 40 hours a week for some ridiculous payment in order to be able to survive another week. Meanwhile I know people hoard up resources all over the world. Of course I want to shift the world and things to happen as would be favorable to me. Which would be a world without state and police where violence is the deciding factor of who gets what and not money or how well-adjusted (a cuckold) someone is.
>You're not an anarchist
Haha, yes because anarchists need to love the rich and to be good citizens of the state, what the hell, you can't accept that your retarded definition of anarchist simply isn't accurate. You are a phony anarchist, please don't call yourself one because you share exactly zero thing in common with actual anarchists. You are a libertarian or "anarcho"capitalist (which is an oxymoron I warn you now). Every collective which is built around private property and money can't be anarchism.

>You're a nigger. A pant-shitting, faithless, cop-hating, society-wrecking, murderous, poor, uneducated dindu.
Oh, so afraid that someone who is stronger than you might take your stuff, little kid? You are the one shitting his pants at the thought of true anarchy, when there would be no daddy cops and state to protect you from people like me. You calling me nigger is a classic, I love it. Actually, it is a flattery. Black people deserve credit for refusing to accept this capitalist dystopia we live in. They actually fight for their rights and freedom, unlike the majority of whites, sadly. Our race could learn a lot from them.

>>195737
>original anarchism had nothing to do with that at all
i dont care what gay retarded communists (roundabout statists) think or what people wearing the label of anarchist have done. the word has a clear definition and from that definition emerges a clear path of action to create the state of anarchy. anarchy comes from the words "an" and "archon" meaning absence of rulers. a ruler is someone who uses violence to make other people do what they want. if a ruler says "you must pay taxes" he gets his underlings to violently enforce that. if you could just ignore the ruler and not be violently assaulted then he would not be a ruler. but anyone can violently impose what they want, the distinction though is that rulers impose violence imorally, and regular people impose violence morally. you are not allowed to go to your neighbor and demand taxes from him, a ruler is though. that is the psychosis of rulership, moral relativism, the idea that some people have more rights than others.

where your distortion of anarchism fails is right at the start, the definition. you cannot even define anarchy without morality because rulership is a moral word, it inherently invokes a moral distinction. at most you could call the ruler the aggressor and the regular person the defender, but since you openly advocate aggression later in your post you have nothing left.

>It's clear you are a pacifist libertarian
where in my post did i rebuke the use of violence? violence can be used morally or immorally; i will cite the passage again since it is extremely important: "it is wrong to aggress upon others, and it is right to defend against others aggressing upon you".

>I want to be free, which implies being free to DO ANYTHING I want
which has nothing to do with anarchy, and is the mentality of a retarded child. you want your freedom but you dont give two shits if you enslave the whole world in the process, its all about you. anarchy necessitates strict adherence to morality, it is not about doing whatever you want just cause you feel like it.

>If you were an anarchist you would know that the state claims monopoly on the rights to violence and that is why it so hypocrite and rotten to have a state at all
the problem with the states monopoly on violence is that it restricts people from using self-defense, not that you arent allowed to rob and kill whoever you like. what youre saying is that you want to do everything the state does, but somehow youre an anarchist.

>If you preach objective morals you end with a state in the end, ironically, because you want to tell others what they can and can't do
if i tell my neighbor he cant break into my house am i a regular person or a statist? i doubt youre retarded enough to claim im an evil statist for telling my neighbor he doesnt have a right to my house. now if i tell my neighbor hes not allowed to drive his car without my permission am i a regular person or a statist? in this case im clearly acting as a statist because im telling him what he can and cant do when i have no RIGHT. figure out morality and a lot will become clear to you.

>>195748
A ruler is someone who rules over others, how is it ruling over others if I fight with them and take their stuff because I am stronger? I don't tell them what to do or how to live, I am simply stronger than them and therefore can possess their stuff. That's all.

You go on and on about morality like some preacher, priest or old lady. Yawn. Look, it isn't difficult to understand:
>"it is wrong to aggress upon others, and it is right to defend against others aggressing upon you"
is just retarded on many levels, mainly because what is considered aggression varies from person to person. If someone is a rich person who hoards up resources while I starve then I consider that aggression towards my person so I find it just to slice his throat and take his food.

Yes, in anarchy nobody has more rights than others. Like I said, using violence to get what you want isn't about rights, it is the natural state of the world. In the animal world the strongest gets what he wants too, why should it be different in society too?

Rulers and anarchists who rob are different. Rulers tell people what to do and set laws for them and they rely on the power of their underlings, they use the state itself to achieve their ends. Anarchists who rob from the rich don't tell them what to do, they have no interest in ruling others, they get what they want and that's it, they rely on themselves because they don't have thugs and policemen at their disposal. Yes, both use violence but so what?

I don't know where you learned this shit that anarchy isn't about doing what you want (then what the hell is the purpose of an anarchy? how is it different from statism?)

>i dont care what gay retarded communists (roundabout statists) think or what people wearing the label of anarchist have done.
You are the statist here, not me. You advocate for absolute morality so nobody would be free in that world of yours. That isn't freedom, that's slavery. If you care about morals then you are a libertarian at best but most likely you are just a conservative larping as an anarchist. Look, just read what actual anarchists thought and wrote instead of "anarcho"capitalists or whatever shit you have been fed.

I don't know if I hate the self righteous debate me faggot or the ass who keeps enabling him more.

>>195749
>I am simply stronger than them and therefore can possess their stuff
so if i put a chain around your neck and whip you and make you work my fields then im not your ruler? i decide when you eat and drink, i decide whether or not you keep the fruits of your labor, i decide how long you work, and to you i am just a regular person.

>If someone is a rich person who hoards up resources while I starve then I consider that aggression towards my person
except you are wrong, since the rich person did not wave a magic wand and cast a spell of hunger on you. you, by way of being alive, started starving, its not the rich persons fault that you had to go and starve now is it?

>In the animal world the strongest gets what he wants too, why should it be different in society too?
>Anarchists who rob from the rich don't tell them what to do
and in the animal world the smartest and most socially dominant gets what he wants. the dumb nigger criminal (you) who goes around slicing peoples throats and taking their belongings lasts for a very short period of time doing what he does. the smart criminal knows that to be effective the victim must not know the identity of the perpetrator, so the smart criminal burglarizes houses while people arent home. now they dont know who did it, but they still know a crime has been committed, so they look for who committed the crime. eventually the smart criminal gets caught and the even smarter criminal realizes that to be even more effective the victims must not even know that a crime has been committed. at this level you have crimes like counterfeiting and fraud, but there is still a chance of getting caught like this so one must make the final leap. the smartest criminals in the world realize that in order to be the most effective, they must make sure the victim does not know their identities, does not know a crime has been committed because he doesnt think that the crime is a crime. this is the level that governments and bankers operate at, and they do not believe that what they are doing is moral. they lie to people, they deceive, they are smarter than the people the rob and so why do you think they shouldnt be entitled to all they can take?

>I don't know where you learned this shit that anarchy isn't about doing what you want
and i dont know where you learned that anarchy is doing whatever you want, oh wait, i do, you got it from mass media brainwashing. and i already told you where i learned it from, the etymological definition of the word, i.e., the actual meaning of it.

>just read what actual anarchists thought and wrote
just look at what "actual anarchists" created, the most oppressive governments in history.

>>195642
What a fucking idiotic way of thinking

>>195642
based beyond belief

>>195751
>so if i put a chain around your neck etc
If you can do it, if you are strong enough to accomplish it then you can do it. It won't make you a ruler because you accomplished it on your own, the ruler of a state uses laws and legal ways to justify why he sends men upon you. You wouldn't be a "ruler" because you fought me and got me for yourself. There is nothing wrong with men fighting out their problems with violence between each other. There is a problem with the state and rulers stepping in pretentiously, though. The state meddles in things where it doesn't have any business at all.

>except you are wrong, since the rich person did not wave a magic wand and cast a spell of hunger on you. you, by way of being alive, started starving, its not the rich persons fault that you had to go and starve now is it?
It's the rich's fault that I starve because they have many excess food to share with me and others yet they refuse to share anything. They are committing aggression on my person by withholding material stuff from me and so they contribute to increasing my pain and suffering in this world. I don't hold it against them because like I said morality is relative so it is their business what they do. But my business is to look for my gain and benefit so of course I will refuse a world where rich people can rule others through money and the state's power.

>and in the animal world the smartest and most socially dominant gets what he wants. the dumb nigger criminal (you) who goes around slicing peoples throats and taking their belongings lasts for a very short period of time doing what he does. ETC
Um, no. Lions don't sit down and have a legal debate with each other to see who has more food and who should lead therefore. They go fight it out between themselves using violence. Same for all species. Only humanity has gotten sick and degenerate and so it resorted to pacifism and the rule of money/capital and law/legalism/statism. The state and money are unnatural things, they shouldn't exist. These two things - state and money - ensure that weak and unworthy people can rule and lead in our societies. Aristocrats, CEOs, politicians, priests who couldn't even lift a sword or gun in the time of war if need be and who if on their own, couldn't even survive.
"The dumb nigger criminal" is indeed superior to a Donald Trump or a Joe Biden for that matter. The former is a warrior, the latter two are leeches only who can live in luxury thanks to civilization.

Your little brainstorming about crime and criminals is irrelevant since crime is a product of statism and the moralizing that comes with having a state. Because morality doesn't come with anarchy like you falsely think, it is a companion of tight collectives under strong state or church authority. Objective morality is invented always for the sake of justifying the laws of the state/church. Your "anarchy" would end up having a state because you want everyone to think the same things and to be the same. You want to impose objective morals onto everyone but to that you would need law and order and police. This is why I say you aren't an anarchist. You are anti-anarchist through and through. You are pro-money, pro-private property, pro-capitalism, pro-law enforcement, you don't have anything in common with anarchists. Stop referring to yourself as one.

>and i dont know where you learned that anarchy is doing whatever you want, oh wait, i do, you got it from mass media brainwashing. and i already told you where i learned it from, the etymological definition of the word, i.e., the actual meaning of it.
Then your little reasoning is shit. I didn't learn from mass media, I actually read anarchist literature and read up on anarchism, unlike you. You say you know what the word means but I doubt it. If there are no rulers that means you can do anything you want but apparently you don't want that so you end up with servitude again. Morality is always used to uphold social order and laws.

>just look at what "actual anarchists" created, the most oppressive governments in history
No anarchists ever created oppressive governments, the closest anarchist ever got to power was during the civil war in Spain. And they didn't create any oppressive government, they distributed resources equally and banned the use of money so the people were free and equal.

it's time for the purge.
'Tonight, we'll see the good and evil in everyone. '

>>195776
>The state meddles in things where it doesn't have any business at all
you mean your private affairs, your private property? the state is interfering with what belongs to you? and you posit that theres something wrong with that?

>It's the rich's fault that I starve because they have many excess food to share with me
and what if youre the 15th niglet that your mother shat out? is whitey just supposed to give away all his wealth to support worthless niggers like you? and dont pretend that someone is committing an act of aggression when you say in the next sentence that you dont care about morality and you just want free shit. aggression is a moral concept, what you are saying is that you are entitled to the things of rich people, that you have a right to their property. you do not care about right or wrong, you want free shit.

>Lions don't sit down and have a legal debate with each other to see who has more food and who should lead therefore
because lions are dumb, and cant speak. lions cant influence the minds of other lions in complex ways like humans can. what i described to you was a completely natural evolution of crime, where the smartest rule. the only sickness and degeneracy to be found is in the criminal nature of it. and it may not have even been though of like that, but simply occurred due to natural selection. a strongarm mafia organization demanding a 10% cut from a business only lasts so long, meanwhile the people who convince others that god made them king last for centuries. again, its completely natural and logical, even if you think that evolution shouldnt tend towards creating parasites and leeches

>the latter two are leeches only who can live in luxury thanks to civilization
they devised civilization in order to rule you. the true rulers have been at this game for thousands of years, dominating all the retards who theyve duped into thinking a right to rule exists. do you think they just went up to a group of police officers and said "enforce my laws"? no, they were the ones who made the police force, they made all the mechanisms of control in society, this situation in which they risk nothing and gain everything is entirely their creation.

and there is no nobility in doing things the hard way. if you want to rob a bank would you rather do it yourself or have someone else do it and give you the money? simple choice. and if you had to enslave someone would you rather put them in iron chains and have them constantly try to break free, or have them in mental chains so that they serve you willingly? another easy choice. you chose to operate in the physical realm to commit crimes, and thats why youre on the bottom. it doesnt matter if youre the strongest guy on the planet and can take on 50 guys at once, if you want to rule the world you need to control peoples minds. in fact what would you even do if there was a king of the world and he was some freak giant that could squash a regular person, would you just get down and suck his dick because hes so strong and so he deserves to rule?

>Your little brainstorming about crime and criminals is irrelevant since crime is a product of statism and the moralizing that comes with having a state
almost, statism is a product of crime. over time criminals who are stupid and weak get caught or killed and smart and strong criminals remain. the smartest criminals realize that convincing people to willingly hand over their stuff is the best way to steal and so they dominate. that means that they also stomp out any lesser thieves (niggers like you) because they dont want you detracting from their profits.

>You want to impose objective morals onto everyone but to that you would need law and order and police
nope, all it really requires is that everyone be capable of defending themselves. if someone attacks you, you dont need to call 911 to uphold morality for you, you can use your own guns to uphold morality. and you can also uphold morality for others that cant, or need help.

its funny you say that i would need the organization of a state to enforce morality when you say that you want money abolished. how are you going to go about doing that? what happens if its discovered that someone was using money? where are the police to stop that horrible crime? and what if, god forbid, theyre using cryptocurrency, you would need an organization to make sure no one uses a computer without a rootkit on it to detect that sort of stuff. maybe even a computer licensing bureau, just to be safe. after all you cant expect that people wont find ways around the anti-cryptocurrency spyware measures.

>You are pro-money, pro-private property, pro-capitalism, pro-law enforcement, you don't have anything in common with anarchists
anarchy has nothing to do with monetary systems, as long as you arent harming anyone, you can use money or burn it in heaps. all anarchy requires is that you dont wrong anyone else, because that is the foundation of statism. the only "you shall not" that can come out of anarchists mouth is "you shall not aggress upon others", anything else is a restriction upon ones freedom and lifestyle. and i am in favor of law enforcement, except the laws are not made by lawmakers, nor are they enforced by police officers.

>I didn't learn from mass media
whos version of anarchy is the closest to that video below your post, yours or mine?

>If there are no rulers that means you can do anything you want but apparently you don't want that so you end up with servitude again
no, nothing like that would ever happen in the real world. if the government disappeared tomorrow and you starting attacking someone you would quite quickly find out that people do not need police to protect them. and if you walked over to a store and tried to rob it you would find out (like many did in the l.a. riots) that without police, justice is actually served more swiftly. without the delusion that police are there to protect you, people dont just roll over and hope for the best, they buy guns, they band together, they take responsibility for their personal protection.

>No anarchists ever created oppressive governments
communists, aspiring to create stateless societies (anarchy), thought that the best way to do this was to create totalitarian governments and then just have them dismantle themselves at some later date. although you are right that they arent really anarchists, they did want anarchy.

>the closest anarchist ever got to power was during the civil war in Spain
and thats all that needs to be said, you believe that anarchists rise to power.

I believe that humanity is evil. Humanity as a whole, acting as a collective entity. All humans do is negatively impact all other life in this planet, throw the system out of balance in every possible way.
I dislike industrial society, and social behaviour generally.
Society could never work harmoniously. People have a fetish on power, either for themselves or for someone else's to which they'll gladly give up their own autonomy in some or other respect. If the powers that be decide to make foul play, people will be on board with that even if it is damaging to them or their environment, as long as the mass condones it.
I don't know why there should be a god. I have never had any experience that would suggest me of a certain personality acting as a deliberate, absolute ruler of the universe in any way that could resemble a human intelligence or consciousness. The only reason I could have ever conceived the idea of a "god" is that I was told by someone else that such a being exists. However, far from being an atheist, I believe there is something like divinity, and that such divinity encompasses the whole of creation and so is not separate from anyhing that we perceive. I AM a materialist but I don't think that excludes the value and possibly the divinity of the natural world. I don't have much evidence of a soul, as I don't think our consciousness is a discrete element somehow separate from the whole of my identity and experience. I don't really believe in the theory that life is some supernatural substance that goes into an otherwise inert body, but the result of complex processes, and that we cannot really discern life from other complex processes, like for example, the fluid mechanics taking place inside a star. I'm not saying a star is necessarily equal in complexity or behaviour as a biological entity, but that it's processes might lie within a spectrum where life lies somewhere. I also do not think life is the only form of process there could necessarily exist in the universe displaying our level of complexity, and that completely unthought of kinds of processes might be somewhere in a remote corner of the universe. The spectrum within which life lies could also encompass many collective processes like that of an ecosystem, society, or the economy. I am saying that all these things may somehow be "alive" but that we have an idea of what "life" is that is informed by little more than our human experience as discrete individuals (as opposed to, say, an ant colony or a coral reef) anyhow.

>>195641
I am center-left eco-liberal. I believe in multiculturalism and equality of sexes. I am not religious but I do ascribe to spiritual and supernatural beliefs, particularly around the powers of human imagination.

I am a vegan and a pacifist. I am anti-space travel and believe that humans should fix our problems on Earth before we start thinking about other planets.

>I have a burning hatred for persons of authority of any kind (teachers, doctors, policemen, politicians, religious leaders, lawyers, judges, etc)
Same.

I have no hope for the future, the presidents job is to maintain the capitalist status quo, not change anything, he is a manager at behest of a faceless bureaucracy. global warming and the insufficient response by the global north will induce a bloody revolution via drought, famine, mass migration, rising sea levels, mass extinction events, etc .Liberal idpol is very specifically meant to diversify the ruling class without threatening the continued existence of the class system.

Rich people that hated the New Deal and Keynesian economics took advantage of the Oil Shock and Stagflation to regain the power they had lost in the wake of the Great Depression. The neoliberal movement reached its apogee in the 90's with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Great Moderation, the 90's tech boom and The End of History and the Last Man.
The popping of the Dot-com bubble, the September 11 attacks and subsequent Global War on Terrorism, Afghan War, Iraq War, 2008 Financial crisis, Austerity, the Syrian Refugee Crisis, the rise of China and Brazilification of America has shattered people's faith that the neoliberals have any idea what they are doing or are able to solve the problems that society faces.

Increasingly you see companies use negative backlash as a means to cast the consumption of their products with an ethical dimension. "crab Nazi Chuds HATE the new star wars, show them they are not welcome by joining the resistance and Disney+
now!".

sjws: resource competition and status signaling

millennial leftists are failed PMC's not working class, they expected to become part of the elite but many factors prevented that. their main goals in life are student debt relief and free college, not exactly working class agenda. something to appeal to the bernie sanders and chapo trap house listening crowd.

The End of History is real, but it's not liberalism. It's post-liberalism. Therapeutic, "woke" oligarchy under careful management by the PMC who work tirelessly to make sure that there is no bigotry to be found.

I dont know what i subscribe to politically, i have gone from different extremes, i was a fascist, commie, anarchist, i could never be a basic bitch liberal or conservative. I hate centrists. I think ive just settled on being a pessimist.

>>195781
I mean the state meddles with the lives of individuals. Private property is a product of the state, that is its whole foundation among other things. If things were owned collectively then there would be no ruling party or rulers. The state is an artificial creation made for the purpose of preserving the class system.

>niglet this
>nigger that
No arguments since we aren't on /pol/, you gonna have to put more thought into your posts if you want to be taken seriously.
>worthless niggers
So who is a "worthless nigger" in your definition? Anyone who refuses to wagecuck away all his life? Then consider me a "worthless nigger" since I always avoided wageslavery in all variations, I have always been NEET and I am proud of it. There is no dignity in slavery.
>aggression is a moral concept
No, you even know the words you are using? If someone does something harmful to me then he is committing aggression towards me, this doesn't have anything to do with morals, it is plain and objective facts we are talking about. Yes, I want free shit. Duh. Your problem with this being? Be careful what you answer, we aren't on /pol/, we are supposed to be on a site for NEETs among other things.

So by your logic you think trannies are natural too because they exist? They don't exist in nature, naturally men are born as either male or female. If you think trannies are anti-nature then so is the state because states don't exist in nature.

>do you think they just went up to a group of police officers and said "enforce my laws"?
Yes, this is how police forces are made. You offer to share with people some of your resources or money in this case if they do something for you. They do it, even though they stupidly don't realize that they would be better off if they just killed the guy and took his possessions.

>if you want to rob a bank would you rather do it yourself or have someone else do it and give you the money? simple choice. and if you had to enslave someone would you rather put them in iron chains and have them constantly try to break free, or have them in mental chains so that they serve you willingly? another easy choice.
I don't want anyone to serve me, I want people to serve themselves, unlike you. This is the huge difference between a true anarch like me and a false, phony anarch like you. There is nobility and sense in doing things yourself, this way you will become more independent, self-reliant and stronger in every sense. Working with servants and thugs through pretentious moralism, legalism and state power can work only so long as your servants refuse to face reality. Once they awaken they will kill you, see Russian Revolution. Once the proletariat realized the situation they destroyed the entire royal family. Having a world where people operate separately is one of my main objectives. Statism is about working together, forcing people into a tight collective. Anarchism is about free choice, people would be free to partner up with each other without any pressure from anyone.
>if there was a king of the world and he was some freak giant that could squash a regular person, would you just get down and suck his dick because hes so strong and so he deserves to rule?
No, I wouldn't do anything with him most likely since in anarchy people only meddle with others' business if it is in their best interest to do so. What do I care if some guy 200 kms away forms a gang and goes around looting people? Good for him. If I had a problem with him then I would outsmart him, stab him in the back.

>statism is a product of crime
If there is no state there is no crime! Understand it already. There are no universal values, you dumbo.
So you support vigilantism, so do I. At least we can agree on one thing. But you feel the need to portray yourself as the good guy at all cost with morality while I'm honest about things.

Money would be abolished by the revolution, with violence. We don't need a police for it, the people can take care of it if they understand our points finally.

Anarchy has plenty to do with monetary systems. Money always implies exploitation, inequality, slavery, private property, etc. Capitalists can't be anarchists because capitalism is always based on law and public order.
You are a retard, people wrong each other all the time and "aggress" upon each other, that is the nature of the world. You do it too without even realizing it.
>and i am in favor of law enforcement, except the laws are not made by lawmakers, nor are they enforced by police officers.
Great, even more idiosyncratic beliefs on your part. How do you support law enforcement without police or lawmakers, you moron? If there is no lawmaker then there is no law, sorry to wake you up.

>whos version of anarchy is the closest to that video below your post, yours or mine?
Didn't watch it but you claiming my version of anarchy is "mainstream" is just ridiculous. Most "anarchists" nowadays are similar to you, they are moralist, pacifist middle-class faggots roleplaying as rebels when their values are the same middle class values just in another package. You claim you want freedom but you are afraid of true freedom and shit your pants at the thought of a truly free world. I guess "freedom" for your kind means being able to choose who you slave away for and not actual freedom, owning yourself. True freedom only comes with violence and conflicts.

>people don't need the police to protect them
Most middle-class and upper-class citizens would beg to differ. Also, succubi in general would start a hysterics you never saw before if the police disappeared tomorrow. I agree that vigilantism is a swifter way of having your revenge (or justice) than legal procedures. But that vigilantism itself implies immorality because it is might makes right. You are so deluded when you try to include moralism in your anarchist mindset. Do you think old people could protect their property through vigilantism? Don't make me laugh. Anarchy wouldn't serve any moral purpose, it would serve best the egoist, the amoral, like me.

State Communism and anarchy are two different things. They never wanted anarchy, they wanted proletarian dictatorship.
Anarchists rise to power, yes. If they can do it. You can't create anarchy without first having power. Duh.

>>195651
I think the only reason you disagree is because you consider egoism to be a negative.

Sentience is the sole problem to be solved yet we're too simple minded to tackle it. At this point we'll just accidentally stumble into a solution eventually or time helps us out.
Either way, all else is just complex expressions of the universal desire to end sentience; no different from the force of gravity pulling water to the lowest accessible point yet forming complex rivers and shaping the landscape as by-product.

>>195794
no, i can see that it obviously benefits a lot of people despite my personal feelings about it. i just dont think that everyone is an egoist just because they do basic things that every living thing does to continue living. there is a gradient of self-interest and i dont see egoist as a baseline but to label a certain place onward on that spectrum.

>>195789
>I mean the state meddles with the lives of individuals
in other words, your life and my life, our lives. you are talking about possession, rightful possession. you are ascribing the life of an individual to that individual. you arent saying "the state meddles with life", youre saying the state meddles with the lives of (indicating possession and ownership) individuals. if the state had a right to other peoples things then you would not perceive any meddling as having taken place.

>Private property is a product of the state, that is its whole foundation among other things. If things were owned collectively then there would be no ruling party or rulers
no, private property has no reliance on the existence of a state, there are many examples of hunter gatherer cultures having private property. and private property cant be a product of the state and at the same time its foundation, choose one retard. as for collective ownership, im having trouble envisioning what that would look like, could you provide examples?

>No arguments since we aren't on /pol/
sounds like you just dont want to reply. the argument i made is very valid, do you want me to retype it out replacing the word nigger with african?

>So who is a "worthless nigger" in your definition?
i consider criminals worthless niggers, but niggers dont bother me as much as you think. i used the word to illustrate an example, that is, if people create hungry mouths at a rate faster than at which they can be fed, are people morally obligated to give away what they have, even to the point where everyone starves? and this brings up another point, why dont you blame your parents for endowing you with all these needs? they were the ones who forced you into this situation, if anyone has blame for you starving its them, not rich people.

>If someone does something harmful to me then he is committing aggression towards me, this doesn't have anything to do with morals
and what constitutes harm to you? is it when someone punches you in the stomach? or is it when they punch their own stomach? you believe that there is a distinction between what is yours, and not yours, that is private property, that is morality. if you believed that "yours" and "mine" did not exist then you would not see a difference between someone else getting harmed and yourself getting harmed. when you say "aggression towards me" what youre saying is towards your property, your body. aggression is not when i cut my hand off, i have every right to cut my hand off, its my hand, but when i do it to you, then it is aggression.

>So by your logic you think trannies are natural too because they exist?
when estrogen is in the water supply and men are told not to be men, then trannies will naturally and invariably come to be. and with the state, if a population accepts immorality and acts immorally, statism with naturally and invariably follow. its not natural in the sense that its the ways things are and ought to be, its a natural consequence of immorality.

>Yes, this is how police forces are made
the statement presumed the existence of police. if police already existed there would be no need to make police forces, but you get the point that police forces were created by rulers.

>I don't want anyone to serve me, I want people to serve themselves, unlike you
yes people should serve themselves unless it harms others, and that doesnt mean theyre serving others. you dont have to hold the door open for anyone, you dont have to donate to charity, you need to do the bare minimum of not acting like a savage nigger. other than that your paragraph is almost completely fine.

>If there is no state there is no crime!
the state does not determine what a crime is, regardless of the popular belief that it can. as you yourself have said, harm and aggression are objective concepts, and this is what makes a crime a crime. why would the existence of a state have any effect on the reality of whether something is right or wrong? if you lived in a stateless part of the world and there was a government elsewhere would crime still exist for you? what if you lived within the so called territory of that state, does crime exist then? its nonsensical. either crime objectively exists or it objectively does not. the state is not the arbiter of truth.

>But you feel the need to portray yourself as the good guy at all cost with morality while I'm honest about things
im not portraying myself as the good guy, i dont want to harm people and that makes me a regular person. you on the other hand, want to hurt people and so you argue fervently against objective morality. why is that, got a problem with being the bad guy? if i accept your line of thought, nothing changes for me, if you accept my line of thought, you have a whole lot of work to do on your character.

>We don't need a police for it, the people can take care of it if they understand our points finally
so how do you stop cryptocurrency from being used?

>Money always implies exploitation, inequality, slavery, private property, etc.
lmao, ok, so now you have a problem with exploitation, inequality, and slavery? aside from the fact that you would willingly perpetuate all of those by other means, what do you think is so bad about slavery? is it wrong? what about inequality, whats so bad about that?

>You are a retard, people wrong each other all the time and "aggress" upon each other, that is the nature of the world
great now were getting somewhere, so you do think right and wrong exists, but you just dont care about it.

>Didn't watch it but you claiming my version of anarchy is "mainstream" is just ridiculous
not at all, the video shows people doing whatever they want, killing, stealing, to the masses anarchy is a concept fit for a horror movie. it is exactly what they envision when you say the word "anarchy", people acting like savages and eating each other. it has nothing to do with what self-proclaimed anarchists think, this is what 99% of people on the planet believe anarchy is. among self-proclaimed anarchists the percentage is lower, but my perception is that most self-proclaimed anarchists are either communists or cant rid themselves of all statist tendencies in some other capacity.

>How do you support law enforcement without police or lawmakers, you moron?
i support the universal, natural law of morality. its not idiosyncratic, its integral to anarchy. without morality being unchanging, natural (i.e. having nothing to do with what man thinks of it) and binding upon every soul there is no reasonable basis for anarchy. and "lawmaker" is an oxymoron unless youre using it in reference to a god. laws are, as i described, unchanging, natural, and binding, like gravity. the law of gravity is not the same thing as the "law" of not having a gun that under 18 inches long.

>You claim you want freedom but you are afraid of true freedom and shit your pants at the thought of a truly free world
in both your world and mine i am free to uphold morality by stopping others from aggressing upon me, and others are free to do so too. what would i be so scared of?

>I guess "freedom" for your kind means being able to choose who you slave away for and not actual freedom, owning yourself
i laughed out loud when i read this. owning yourself? where did you hear that one mr.abolish private property? i guess a stopped clock is right twice a day. now think through that "owning yourself" concept to the end and you have true anarchy, thats the key right there. if you own yourself, exclusively, then it is wrong for others to you what you do not consent to, because you are the only one that can decide what can be done with your body and your property. any and all actions done to you and your property are claims of ownership, because one only has a right to his property. therefore any crime committed against another is a form of slavery, no matter how minor. taking 100% of what someone produces is slavery, taking 50% of what someone produces is slavery, and taking 1% of what someone produces is still slavery.

the issue you have with this though is that owning yourself cannot be justified without recognizing that others own themselves too, and it is wrong to violate that principal.

>Most middle-class and upper-class citizens would beg to differ
they would, but they would be wrong. people will be amazed at how foolish they were when they realize guns deter criminals and not phones to dial 911 with. as for the weak people, they will have to band together with the strong for protection, and strong people would band together as well regardless because there is strength in numbers. this isnt theorizing solutions in a grand ideological plan, this is basic human nature. how do you think the old and weak got by before governments were around?

>But that vigilantism itself implies immorality because it is might makes right
no actually, vigilantism implies morality because it comes from the word vigilant, like watchful. as in youre watching for a crime to occur, and then acting from a position of defense against aggression; you arent being vigilant for people who leave their car doors unlocked.

>State Communism and anarchy are two different things. They never wanted anarchy, they wanted proletarian dictatorship.
state communism is an oxymoron, communism necessitates the absence of a state (though they will never achieve that). the communists, wanting to abolish the state in the end, determined that in order to do so they first had to have a transitional period where they have a socialist government. the end goal however, is obviously never reached, and the all powerful state goes on to commit atrocities in the name of the revolution. they do try to get you to forget about the anarchy bit though, like when they did the great purge in the ussr.

>>195798
I had these discussions with you numerous times on this place and you always just continue to parrot your idiosyncratic views without thinking through what you argue for. You are totally hopeless.

Just to answer a few of your points as the discussion branched into way too many directions:
- private property comes into existence through state power, if there is no holy state and holy laws then there is no private property. The state creates private property in order to ensure the existence of classes and hierarchies. If no private property then no rulers because without private property ranks are just empty titles. Without money and a huge amount of capital/private property the state and the rulers aren't worth anything. Anarchy necessarily means equality and freedom, to ensure this you have to get rid of private property. You aren't an anarchist because you still defend the social structure of state power and exploitation. It's obvious at this point that you hate freedom and equality and only campaign for your middle-class capitalist liberal interpretation of these things.
- I don't hate my parents because I'm not a self-hating cuckold. My parents aren't responsible for the fact that we live in this capitalist dystopia. It's not like those rich people would starve if they shared their wealth with others, they just wouldn't be able to have orgies on their yachts and private islands and wouldn't be able to own 50 planes but only 1. It's honestly quite entertaining that you defend these rich people so much while probably you yourself aren't one of them. Your cuckold attitude is disgusting to anyone with a tiny bit of pride. You can't these people without being ridiculous, unless of course you belong to their circles.
- Morals aren't natural things and neither they are objective despite you being an autist about this thing and going on saying that they are. Ask two people about what is moral, ask a 100, and they won't agree. Because there is no good or bad. Morals were invented to preserve the status quo and if you can't see this then you are again, beyond any hope. The reason why you argue for your own version of morality so much is because you want to control people and to make them act in ways that are beneficial to you. You probably never had to struggle in your life or inherited lots of wealth and therefore you want to preserve private property at all cost. That is why you cling to shit like "no aggression" - lol, what aggression? It's bad if I use violence to take food and stuff from rich people but it is okay if they don't give any to me? That's not aggression apparently since it is "theirs". There is no theirs or mine, you retard. If I steal your wallet then it is mine, so much for divine morals and spook of private property. I know what you will say, I said 'your' therefore I acknowledge private property! No, you see this is a figure of speech. I could say the wallet that you use or something like that but we won't argue over words, right?
- Yes, crimes can only exist in states. There is no crime without a legal system that calls said act a crime.
- Like I said, you already harm people by simply just existing. You can't exist with stepping on another's toe. That is why moralizing is pointless. It is okay to harm others by exploiting and enslaving them but it isn't okay to use violence, says you. I say that is like your own morality and not mine or universal morals at all.
- Crypto would be stopped from being used by the people. People can take care of themselves if they are educated properly.
- No, my version of anarchy is quite unpopular because people bought into this comfy middle-class anarchy that you subscribe to too, about pacifism and existing together without any sort of conflict somehow the minute the state disappears. I honestly doubt that you are older than 18. Your whole worldview is so incredibly shallow, superficial and childish. You believe in objective morals, that most people are "good" and whatever shit. Come on.
>"lawmaker" is an oxymoron
>laws are, as i described, unchanging, natural, and binding, like gravity
Delusional to a spectacular level. Mind sharing with us then what are these objective and divine laws you adhere so much? And why doesn't everyone else adhere to the same laws and morals? You have to be sub90 IQ to believe that your own particular morality is objective, unchanging and natural and whatnot.
- You claim people should own themselves too but you want to force people to acknowledge your morals first of all. That isn't ownership of self, that is. If you place morality above yourself then you don't own yourself. Morality is always about community and society. You can't own yourself if you aren't free to do what you want. God, I can't believe I have to explain this to someone who says he is an anarchist.
> how do you think the old and weak got by before governments were around?
Probably not very well at all, that is why tribes and such made traditions about killing people over a certain age and killing any children that showed weakness. The existence of states and laws benefit the weak the most after the rulers. That is why old people and wymen are most likely to fight for statism and a strong state in some form.
>vigilantism
You are being vigilant against attacks from others you idiot, it has nothing to do with morals, aggression or crimes. Are you sure you are completely all right mentally? Sounds like your worldview completely rotted your brain away.
>state communism is an oxymoron
You know what else is an oxymoron? Moral anarchy. Laws and Anarchy. An anarchy where people can't do what they want. Your political ideology is one big oxymoron. You are the biggest oxymoron I ever heard about.

>It's the rich's fault that I starve because they have many excess food to share with me

I think your heart is in the wrong place against the state man. Maybe you dont live in a western country with food benefit. My state loves neets and literally believes that neets have a right to food and coping food (drinks/chocolates etc).

As a matter of fact my city wants neets to feel like humans so much they let us spend our food benefit with comfy fast food like chicken tendies/mcdonalds/kfc. Why would i want to support selfish cringe narccisits like libertarian cucks? I can understand if you are a minumum wage earner but you are obligated to help those less fortunate than you

>>195825
>Anarchy necessarily means equality and freedom, to ensure this you have to get rid of private property
so if im free to enslave you how free does that make you? is that promoting freedom and equality? or do perhaps acts of immorality promote the opposite of that.

>My parents aren't responsible for the fact that we live in this capitalist dystopia
so if theres 2 people in the world, and enough food for 2 people. if those people have a kid, should 2 people eat food and let one starve, or should 3 people eat some food and all starve?

>It's honestly quite entertaining that you defend these rich people so much
anarchy benefits even the poorest people financially, not just the rich. the amount of wealth that is wasted by taxes, inflation, and interest on bank loans is so enormous it is incomprehensible. even just getting rid of debt based currency (which is what hitler did) would cause the economy to flourish in a matter of years. your genius idea of "abolishing" private property has left death, destruction, and poverty in its wake, meanwhile removing the state from the economy has a great track record of economic improvement.

>If I steal your wallet then it is mine, so much for divine morals and spook of private property
>Mind sharing with us then what are these objective and divine laws you adhere so much?
ok, think big picture. you have a society of 1 million people who like stealing. the geniuses among that society devise a plan to steal from everyone and they create a state, they go to peoples doors telling them they have to pay taxes or they get shot. now imagine a society of 1 million people who do not like stealing and who are moral. any form of stealing is completely rejected and defended against because they know stealing is wrong, and thus a state is never formed. no, the state does not exist in this situation just because your neighbor wont let you rob him. only in my version of anarchy do tax collectors not exist, which is a very good measure of whether or not there is a state.

when you view your actions on a societal scale then yes divine morals do exist, a society that is immoral descends into slavery, and a moral one becomes more free. that is something that you cannot refute and is a law, in the true meaning of the word. and to respond to another one of your points, applying this knowledge you would be able to figure out that i do not believe most people are moral. since a state exists this means that society as a whole has accepted immorality.

>Crypto would be stopped from being used by the people. People can take care of themselves if they are educated properly.
so what would you do? there are probably millions of crypto transactions going on right now, if the state disappeared whats your move?

>You claim people should own themselves too but you want to force people to acknowledge your morals first of all
nope, i own myself, you own yourself, thats all that needs to be acknowledged (which is morality). if i own myself, i decide how my body gets used, you cant come up to me and take off my arm. if you own yourself, the same is true, but where you falter is you believe that you can do whatever you want to other peoples bodies and still say that they own themselves. if they own themselves why do you think you can put a chain around their necks? does that not seem completely asinine to you?

>You are being vigilant against attacks from others you idiot
which means you have the right to defend yourself, try retaining a single word i say.

I think labels are hurdles for the mind. However if I want to explain i need to use some of them. My current worldview is mostly near Pannekoek. I believe communist class theory is accurate. Material conditions determine thoughts. I am a son of a working class family in a poor country. I cannot imitate middle class first worlders

>>195879
Freedom and equality mean people can do whatever they want, without any kind of organization or state breathing down on their neck and stopping them. Freedom to own yourself, freedom to do what you want, freedom to get what you can for yourself and equality because there is no state so everyone starts with equal positions. Equality meaning that there is no monetary system or hierarchies that are made artificially. If you allow private property to remain things will go back to "normal" again soon. Private property -> laws are made to protect private property -> certain people rise above others because they hoard up more capital or property -> classes are formed -> the ruling class forms a state and oppresses the lower classes. That is how it always goes. That is why private property counters anarchy. Collective ownership would mean that there is no my or yours relating to anything, what is "your" is what you can get for yourself by using whatever means necessary. Of course this would mean the poor son of a bitch that lives down your street can get an equal "piece of the cake" if he is smart, lucky or strong enough to get his hands on your property. Laws and morals defending private property exist for the sake of defending the ruling classes mainly.

Your example about poor people having kids is bad simply because rich people wouldn't starve if they decided to share their stuff with others who need it. They have EXCESS resources they don't need personally except for the fact that they want to feel superior and want to oppress others through their positions. Nobody needs to starve in this world but people starve because of the mistakes of a few people. I'm not moralizing so I can say that rich people are free to keep their stuff for themselves if they want to, HOWEVER, in that case they shouldn't be surprised when the people will revolt one day and burn them alive. Just like they are free to be assholes and keep their money people like me are free to rise up and take their stuff and send them to gulags.

"Anarchy" doesn't really benefit poor people, I'm talking about your version of anarchy, anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism. Taxes serve the purpose of taking away from the rich and helping those who need it, of course it's another matter that some tax systems are just horribly made. Anarcho-capitalism will lead to power getting centralized in the hands of a few CEOs who will form the state according to their taste to protect their interests and to oppress the average guy even more. The only people who seriously dream about that kind of libertarian dystopia are factory owners, big CEOs and serious money people. Even your average shop owner and small-time employer would get destroyed in a world like that because he couldn't keep up with the competition. And there is no need to protect or improve the economy because it is a spook only, created for the purpose of getting the system going.

The problem with your moral anarchy is that some people will inevitably end up stealing. If that is the case it is better for everyone to steal than to make the majority succumb to slave morals and let them get exploited by a few people. You can protect yourself against immoral people if you become immoral too. I would rather live in a world of thieves and robbers than in a world where people are idiots and get exploited by capitalists or other kind of oppressors. That's just me though.
So I would say states are formed exactly when objective morals become popular among a certain people. Objective morals are used to justify the existence of the state. And if people don't buy into objective morality then you can't treat them like a mindless herd.

>a society that is immoral descends into slavery, and a moral one becomes more free
Experience shows otherwise. The most oppressive governments always used to be moralfags, at least when it concerned the general population. You can't have a totalitarian state unless you posit objective morals for the people to adhere to. In Nazi Germany it was about race, what is good for the race is moral, in the USSR it was about the workers, what is good for the workers is acceptable, etc. You always have to give objective morality to the masses if you want to rule them. If everyone is free to do what he wants and is therefore free to be amoral or immoral then you will have anarchy.

> there are probably millions of crypto transactions going on right now, if the state disappeared whats your move?
Educate people until they see that using money is damaging to everyone. Form militias from citizens to get rid of anyone who uses crypto. And no, that isn't a police force, it would be an association of free people.

>if they own themselves why do you think you can put a chain around their necks? does that not seem completely asinine to you?
I am free to put a chain around their necks, not that I want to. They are also free to resist or to do the same thing to me if they can.

>you have the right to defend yourself
In anarchy one has the right to do anything.

>>195878
We don't have anything of the sort where I'm from. Though to be honest I consider a welfare state or a state like that to be quite manipulative. They throw at you enough for you to survive, that is just about to pacify people and to stop them from revolting. If people revolted they could take way more from the rich than just a few mcburgers.

>>195889
All your wall of text could be replaced by a simple 'proper regulation', everything good has a proper foundation. 
To destroy something and prefer to remain on the wild due to malfunctions is not the smartest of choices.
In anarchy, what guarantees that a bunch of people ready to oppress others won't join forces just as in a organized system?

>>195895
To destroy something unnecessary and oppressive to my person is a smart choice to me. I don't reap much benefit from living under a state as opposed to some people. I don't think persons of authority helped me solve anything, ever, in fact they only made my life harder.

>In anarchy, what guarantees that a bunch of people ready to oppress others won't join forces just as in a organized system?
Nothing, since anarchy won't magically fix everything by itself, it is a political form only. It all depends on the people. But nothing good in life is easy to achieve, it is true in this case too. We will just have to be vigilant and prevent assholes from being assholes and oppressing us again.
I could also ask, what guarantee is there that our leaders and state in any form will ever have the best interest of the people in mind instead of the privileged few who happen to rule everything?

>>195786
>I dont know what i subscribe to politically, i have gone from different extremes, i was a fascist, commie, anarchist, i could never be a basic bitch liberal or conservative. I hate centrists. I think ive just settled on being a pessimist.
I share your feelings/experiences to some extent. I was raised in a christian family but my father is kind of open-minded, he is anti-liberal but was always open to socialist stuff. Anyway, I feel that the extremes have somehow more in common with each other, even if they appear to be polar opposite at first glance, than with moderate or centrist opinions.

Like you I tried to be most of these things too. I was a nazi during my teens (who isn't?), then I had a communist period, now I'm an anarchist. I didn't find the conservative and liberal attitudes to be satisfying either.

Though I'm not so much of a pessimist in regards to the future politically. Who knows what the future will bring? Every system is bound to end sooner or later, it is true for this neo-liberal or post-liberal as you called it capitalism we live in too. If outside forces and cultures can't destroy it then it will destroy itself eventually. I refer to the inconsistencies inherent in the current world-order of the West first of all, like importing muslims and trying to be multicultural while they (the people who import them) are liberals. It won't work out well.
Back to the topic of political extremism, I think one unifying factor is possibly the anti-middle class agenda behind these ideologies (fascism, communism, anarchism). Fascism is elite based, the other two are proletariat based but I feel they share lots of things in common, like hatred of capitalism, bourgeoise values (hedonism and consumerism) and traditional christian values. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what you call the enemy, jews or rich capitalists, you roughly attack the same group of big money people/capitalist overlords/merchants.

>>195897
>To destroy something unnecessary and oppressive to my person is a smart choice to me
I asumme that the next statement is also correct
'To build something necessary and liberating to my person is a smart choice to me'
Im not pro-system, im just with something that works well, those happen to be well made systems, heck, even living alone in an automated farm in a remote island is valid, im just trying to refute your arguments to make you reach accuracy.

>what guarantee is there that our leaders and state in any form will ever have the best interest of the people in mind instead of the privileged few who happen to rule everything?
The same thing that guarantees that
>We will just have to be vigilant and prevent assholes from being assholes and oppressing us again.

There are good leaders out there, they are just hard to find and put in power.

>>195908
Why would you trust in leaders or systems, though? They won't protect you or care about you in any significant way. That kind of collectivism is a dead end, was proven to be so by history. Maybe there are good leaders but it is best and safest to lead yourself, don't you think? I can't trust anyone at this point.

Democracy and liberalism are slavery too, they just give you a slightly longer chain. Power ends up corrupting people, even if they weren't corrupt before they got power. All kind of culture and society where there are hierarchies and ranks ends up being an elitist little club eventually where those who happen to be on good terms with the leaders get everything handed to them while others are left behind. No thanks. I don't want to be cannon fodder for some suit and tie wearing sociopath.

>>195927
I guess you're right, a hermitic life is the way to go to those who wont tolerate slavery.

My opinion is that you’re underage.

>>195889
>Freedom to own yourself
if you come up to me and cut off my arm, then that would mean i am not free to own myself. if people own themselves and you really believe that then you actually have to respect that. but you dont believe that, you just want a free for all where whatever happens happens and you dont really care who gets hurt in the process. if everyone ends up enslaved, thats anarchy just as much as peaceful coexistence is to you. you fundamentally dont understand what the word freedom means, so ill give you an example. if a police officer says "you are free to go", you start walking away, and he tackles you, did he really tell the truth? were you free to go? no, you could TRY to leave , it would be a battle, but you were not free to go. freedom means that your will is done and not the will of another, so long as your will doesnt conflict with anothers. if i want to go for a walk outside, that is my will, if someone shoots me in the head while im on my walk, then his will is done, mine has been completely overruled. in this situation i am not free to walk outside because other people have stopped me from doing so. according to you however i am free, which makes the word free a completely meaningless word. in what instance could someone not be free, if getting shot in the head isnt an impediment to freedom? or if getting enslaved isnt an impediment to freedom? your position is so fucking retarded its comical, yes, you reason that literal slaves are free. maybe anarchy would make sense to you if you had the slightest idea of what freedom actually was.

>Private property -> laws are made to protect private property… -> the ruling class forms a state and oppresses the lower classes
the last point does not follow at all. if people know objective morality then they will not enforce unjust "laws" or oppress anyone. and the second point also does not follow, there would not be "laws" formed to protect private property if objective morality were known because property rights are already covered by morality. it does not matter whether or not a "lawmaker" says that murder is wrong, it is wrong regardless of what anyone on the planet thinks or says or writes down.

>The problem with your moral anarchy is that some people will inevitably end up stealing. If that is the case it is better for everyone to steal than to make the majority succumb to slave morals and let them get exploited by a few people.
if people steal from you, then you can take back what they stole. it does not logically follow that you go an steal from your neighbor, although i guess it does in the mind of a little hurt child. having no police or government does not mean people will roll over and let themselves be robbed and killed. as ive already explained, if people realize they alone are responsible for defending themselves, they will do it. that is completely aside from the fact that is moral to defend yourself and your possessions, what im describing is a function of human nature.

>The most oppressive governments always used to be moralfags, at least when it concerned the general population
if morality only concerns a certain group of people, then it is not objective. what you are talking about is an incomplete picture of morality fed to the population, and that is the principle "do not aggress upon others". this is rightfully called slave morality because if you think that violence is never okay (or only police officers can use it) then you will be enslaved. many notice this and then throw out the principle entirely instead of realizing the other half of morality; it is a right to defend against aggression, to use violence in the name of good. these principles work as a set, isolated they are worthless.

and when you say that nazi germany and the ussr had morals, you are half right. since most people dont outright want to be evil, they wont go along with things that seem blatantly evil; there needs to be some justification, like preserving the race, or justice for the workers. however this does not mean that anything done by these regimes was actually moral. killing a random jew is immoral regardless of whether or not jewish bankers are actually ruining your country. just because hitler gave some shitty "justification" doesnt actually make it just, it would be like if i killed someone for looking at me funny. yeah i could say he disrespected me and so i was just preserving my street cred, and i could make up this whole elaborate justification up, but it doesnt have any bearing on what actually transpired.

>If everyone is free to do what he wants and is therefore free to be amoral or immoral then you will have anarchy
so right where we are now?

>>195895
>In anarchy, what guarantees that a bunch of people ready to oppress others won't join forces just as in a organized system?
youve completely missed the point. anarchy is the result of people knowing and abiding by morality. so if you say "what if people just didnt do that" yeah no shit there wouldnt be anarchy. on another level though if youre talking about a minority of people trying to oppress a bunch of anarchists it would not work. unless the statists win mentally, convincing the anarchists to support a state, it will never work. it is impossible for a government to physically subjugate a population, this has been shown time and time again. during the american revolution it was said that only 3% of the colonists fought against britain, nowhere close to the populations actual maximum fighting capacity, and they still won.

Succubi are basically corrupted demonic-like entities whose purposes are to attempt to fool men and lead them astray from truth and into the muck, in the wrong pattern. Peace, egalitarianism are possible, but the steps to get there, what it would entail, and life under this path is not what most norp hippies believe it would be (i.e faggy, gynocentric, deracinated, etc).

>>195988
Your idea of freedom is a lie or fantasy only. I said it somewhere but you can't exist without hurting others or without "stepping on the toes of someone else" so to speak. How do you exactly imagine a world where people just leave each other alone? There is no world like that. There are billions of humans now on Earth and even if our numbers were fewer people would still get into conflicts with each other. War, violence and conflicts are parts, natural parts of life and existence. The problem with the state isn't that it uses violence, the problem is with the nature of the state. States necessarily benefit a few people the most plus they restrict individual freedom. Individuals fighting out things between each other is natural, the state on the other hand is an impersonal creation of the elite, a "machine" that makes sure individuals can't exist, only parts of the collective can exist. The state is like a big hungry whale that has to eat up everything it comes into contact with, you are pressured and forced to become part of the collective or you will be destroyed. Under the oppression of the state no individual can exist.
And I'd say that in a moral anarchy people wouldn't own themselves at all, they may be able to own their property peacefully and whatever but they don't own themselves because they follow some abstract ghost like universal morality. You can't own yourself and be moral. To be moral is to deny yourself and to give up yourself, to sacrifice your individualism for the sake of something else.

But laws would have to be made to uphold your morality because realistically speaking it is impossible to make a world where everyone follows the same moral code without any pressure. Your whole argument rests on the assumption that "if people just followed my moral views…" You can't base your worldview on empty wish-fulfillment fantasies. You have to face the facts. The fact that not everyone thinks like you. The fact that people won't ever be the same completely. The fact that what you say is universal morality is just your subjective opinion.

>so right where we are now?
So I am free to go out and beat the old lady who lives next to me the next time she burns some trash under my window? Wait, I'm not free to do that at all without daddy police and mommy state coming to slap me on the ass for being a "naughty boy".

> it is a right to defend against aggression
No, it is a self-defense mechanism to use violence when confronted with another man's violence. There are no rights actually, "rights" are given by fictional things like states, churches or gods.
>to use violence in the name of good
And good is what is acceptable morally to YOU, am I right?

>>195993
>it is impossible to make a world where everyone follows the same moral code without any pressure
the pressure is other people defending against aggression, which is completely natural. i am not asking people to become ideological revolutionaries to create anarchy, i am asking them to do what they already want to do, and to realize what they have the right to do. and i find this ironic coming from you considering you want people to be immoral but just not in ways that you deem "parasitic" or "weak". you have no course of action against people who want to go against your code of honor and form governments. people who are immoral have every incentive to form governments and completely disregard whatever you think their values should be, what the fuck are you going to do about that? some people just have no problem with being bottom-feeder parasites and will do anything to gain power even if it makes them scum.

we are living in a world where your version of immoral "anarchy" already exists. the parasites have duped people into following them and you cant do anything to stop them. even if you killed the parasites the followers would do anything to prop up new ones, you are completely powerless to stop this. the greatest testament to the failure of your ideology is the world we live in right now, there are governments that exist everywhere and the message of comfortable slavery that they preach will always be better received than the message of immorality and barbarism that you preach.

>I said it somewhere but you can't exist without hurting others or without "stepping on the toes of someone else" so to speak
maybe for uneducated lowlife niggers who arent skilled in anything other than thievery, but most people get along fine, and if someones toes do get stepped on you can apologize or make it up to them. violence isnt apart of existence, although living in a ghetto may make it seem that way to you.

>To be moral is to deny yourself and to give up yourself, to sacrifice your individualism for the sake of something else.
so you think youre an individual huh, should other people think that too? or should people treat you like youre a tool just there for their benefit? youre hypocritical, you think youre special, you want your individualism but dont want anyone else to have theirs. extremely childish.

>Wait, I'm not free to do that at all without daddy police and mommy state coming to slap me on the ass for being a "naughty boy".
i was using the same definition of freedom that you used in your post you fucking moron. and on top of that i corrected your shitty understanding of the word, what the fuck is the point of this supposed to be? i told you what the word free means and now youre trying to make me look like an idiot by responding to you assuming you were using the word free in the same sense you used it elsewhere in your post?

>"rights" are given by fictional things like states, churches or gods
rights cannot be given at all. a right is a truth, a truth like i own myself or 2+2=4. true and right mean the same thing, and no one decides what is true or "bestows" truth. something is either true or it isnt, a group of legislators declaring something wrong is a right is just as asinine as a group of mathematicians declaring that a wrong math equation is right.

I used to go to Church in my early to mid 20s to deal with some shit in my life. I have read the whole Bible but struggle with last aspects of Christianity, so I cannot confidently call myself a Christian.
Right now I live in Thailand, so I am learning about Buddhism and Hinduism (Thailand is a Buddhist country but the influence of Hinduism historically is deep).

I read some Nietzsche as a teenager. I don’t think his interpretation of morality leads to very happy people or a very nice society. He seems to see compassion for compassions sake, the desire for objective truth, a sense of fairness, as a product of the resentment of slaves and something that saddles down muh glorious ubermensch. I do not think this idea leads to good things.

Politically I am centre left on economic policy and centre right on cultural issues. I think within a capitalist system there is an inherent antagonism between those who supply capital/own and trade assets vs those who sell their labour to survive. I think the state should manage the conflict between these two groups to improve the quality of life for the common man.
However I am skeptical of increasing social progressivism and the destruction of our culture
I am a socially conservative social Democrat.

>>195741
>1663785367690.jpg

Ugh, this image REEKS of gender dysphoria.

I'm currently researching Bnei Noach, it feels right for me, it is meaningful and actually improves your life once you start practice it.

>>196024
You know what, you sort of convinced me. That anarchy isn't what I want. Yes, anarchy is indeed useless to my purposes. Better jump into the boat of fascism.
Yes, now that I think of it like that, I don't want freedom and equality for everyone. I want freedom for a select group of special übermensch people. Maybe I was a fascist all along, thinking of myself as a revolutionary anarchist. My mistake. Thanks for helping me reach new conclusions.

>maybe for uneducated lowlife niggers who arent skilled in anything other than thievery, but most people get along fine, and if someones toes do get stepped on you can apologize or make it up to them. violence isnt apart of existence, although living in a ghetto may make it seem that way to you.
History and real life proves otherwise. I don't know where you live but violence is always a necessary part of existence in some form. If nothing other, the police and military need to use violence. History is nothing but a long chain of wars with short periods of peace between them. Don't deny the obvious.

>rights cannot be given at all. a right is a truth, a truth like i own myself or 2+2=4. true and right mean the same thing, and no one decides what is true or "bestows" truth. something is either true or it isnt, a group of legislators declaring something wrong is a right is just as asinine as a group of mathematicians declaring that a wrong math equation is right.
Real life proves you otherwise again. People are free to do whatever their rulers allow them to do. The master decides, the sheep obeys or is made to obey.
And why do you think different societies have different ideas about what rights mean exactly? Because universal rights don't exist.

>>196025
The Übermensch can be noble and help others. What Nietzsche hated was the Christian or Socialist ideal of a hero who goes around helping everyone without any distinction and therefore this "hero" is nothing but a sheep or tool that serves the community's well-being. Serving people's well-being can lead to disaster because it creates a society that only cares about living an easy hedonist life instead of striving for higher goals. Plus when you think about it, it is just wrong. It is mostly the common folk who should help and serve the special, talented men and not the other way around. I don't think Nietzsche hated altruism as a concept most of all, what he hated was unconditional altruism and making man into a herd animal that only knows how to serve others.

>I am skeptical of increasing social progressivism and the destruction of our culture
Cultures are born and die periodically. I think we should strive to create new cultures and new values. Sticking to old culture so vehemently won't result in anything noble or great ultimately.

>>196025
Most people are socialy right-economicaly left when left to their own. But the modern, Western states try to achieve the exact opposite, with dismal results so far

>>196028
…What?!?

>>196107
Many troons are into touhou and drawings of lolis do not help. You have set off someone's troon-dar.

I used to be natsoc but the resistance is filled with feds, chuds, and idiots, so im joining the NWO/winning team. I want to be pure capitalist and be richer than everyone I hate. Some people hate me for being natsoc, "greasy/grimy", using drugs, and gambling, I want to prove that I am better than them. Theres this one communist troon and this other fat troon that I hate so much and i want to flex on them, alot of the people who hate me are color crew tier fags or commies so i want to be very rich to make them seethe. I want my first business to be either a laundromat or a smokeshop, the entire business model of a laundromat is based on poor people not being able to afford a washer and drier and i dont think thats going to change for a while. a smoke shop is my ideal business but may be oversaturated in my area, I want to sell vice to non whites so i can consentually kill blacks while profiting off of it like the british selling opium to the chinese. I see a new gilded age forming and I refuse to be a neo peasant, I want to own amazon smart pods.

I, like everybody, operate on limited information and believe my beliefs to be the ultimate truth for the fleeting time that I hold a view informed by my latest readings. I am aware of the contradictory nature of my "beliefs" and yet, locally, I hold my current views as self-evident, ultimate truths.
However, then, I go into the internets and am genuinely bewildered that people would earnestly believe the exact opposite of what I believe. And it vexes me, because I have just read why so-and-so is the case and seeing a complete contradiction of it online (not a counter-argument, just someone who holds the 'unsustainable' opposite position) causes me to struggle to understand how can someone possibly hold that stance.
Well,in other cases it is my set of core beliefs which is in contradiction to what someone else holds dear and true. And it causes me much confusion.
It makes me realize that there are billions of people outthere, and that there is no way to possibly have a system where everybody would be happy. Have a "left-leaning" government and extreme-righ-wingers will protest, and vice versa.
Ultimately that left/right divide I think is absolute bullshit, but the point is the same. I am opposed to authority in general but there are people who genuinely hold an authoritarian view and would go to great lengths to have it.
They will debate me endlessly, and I ain't to good at debating anyway so I'll pretty much cede, as I don't give a fuck what they think, but the fact that people will spend so much effort in going the exact opposite way I would go, and that it isn't just "the governments" or "the corpos" who are doing it (as a lot of people often like to think, that we all regular folk ultimately want the same and it's the evil kapitalistz using he evil power of money), that disheartens me deeply, not because I would want people to generally agree with me, but because there is no way we can have a stable society when everybody is pulling in a very different direction believing diametrically opposite beliefs.

>>197972
Hell, even this thread is a symptom. The internet turns out to be a very toxic place. I don't think ot does me any good seeing these people so viciously attacking each other's ideas. Especially since nobldy seems to do it in "good faith" at fucking all. That's why I like books a lot better. sure the same ba ter happens in there, but at least arguments are developed and it'a not just a contest to see who has the rarest soyjaks.
I detest humans. I really do.

>>197972
>>197973
Same, anon.

I write a website about my positions. Won't link it here but I get around elsewhere.

Honestly I don't want to rehash things I write about there and in that persona. I do have a life outside of that. That said, what most people think is "politics" is nothing of the sort, but ideologies they abase themselves to. They have no serious stake in politics and society, and if they do they're not playing that game except as a stall tactic.

I've had a long-time contempt for philosophy and especially the bastardization of science that has been promoted as "The Science" lately.

I got in a long argument with someone because he was triggered I mentioned being a Deist, not even bothering to read why I came to that conclusion even though I really didn't want to. Even here, the interpretation I hold is that this is a metaphor for something more complicated, and my belief is not because I would prefer to believe it is true or because I was indoctrinated, but because I needed an explanation for the regularity of religious thought. Most atheists aren't really atheists but are "religion of science" assholes who worship the empire and have varying degrees of Satanic practice in them. Some of them are really shameless about the fakeness of their "atheism". If you're making grandiose claims about the nature of science being eternal, you're far removed from an atheist. To be a true atheist in this world is very harrowing, because you're around people who are hypocritical and extremely deceptive about what they stand for and what they're praying to, what they worship and abase themselves to. It is my attempt to understand human deception and their seeming love for the death cult that brought me to the conclusion that there probably is something like a deity, but it doesn't conform to anything most humans are following. Ascribing to such a thing petty motives that are clearly motives of a person or an institution of mortals has always struck me as absurd. The whole thing can only exist because it is co-opting something real, that a few people have in their experience of the world encounter in the sense that such things actually exist. Ordinary people would have some spiritual thought - it is impossible for them to truly not - but there is a great game of herding people to follow cults, which hold hidden knowledge for the initiates about what the real plan is. Nothing about the major religions or their modern ideological equivalents is what it purports to be or what it seems at first glance. For one, it is often forgotten how deep Christian esotericism runs. It's far more elaborate than these hokey New Age bullshit meditations that were pretty boilerplate self-help Satanic guides.

I guess I can spew some thoughts about religion, if this is the correct thread and others want to engage, but I don't want to hog the thread.

>>195647
after growing up i realized i am purposeless too. life as a male is inherent to a collective. being a work drone as they say. it's what we are and there's no shame in that, it's what makes civilization.

>>199018
Sad, disgusting and oh yeah, unironically kill yourself if you think the life you currently lead is of any value.

>life as a male is inherent to a collective. being a work drone as they say. it's what we are and there's no shame in that, it's what makes civilization.
The "most wizardly" sentence award this year goes to you, normal friend.

>>199018
civilization of purposeless slaves

suicide is more rational