NO MORE BULLSHIT; REAL TALK ONLY

>4. The sympathy, compassion, and generosity of the western world is starting to become a weakness instead of a virtue.
Blue pill. It's historical pollution.

This is your only interesting point, turn the other cheek is mass subversion of the populace against the most aggressive, insular culture in history. The whole point is in 100 years we'll collectively deny islamophobia, so no reparations or affirmative action.

How will we collectively deny Islamophobia when every act of passive non-acceptance is declared a hate crime? The slopes are slippery when it comes to the public narrative and I see so few contrary voices (Douglas Murray among them) to withhold this tide, never mind reverse it.

Excellent position statement. Plenty of grist. I think the basic premises are sound. Let's see if any who genuinely disagree can formulate counter-points.

Attached: 1534926688979-pol.jpg (571x570, 54K)

>when every act of passive non-acceptance is declared a hate crime?
Because this.

If the media just went out and reported every migrant crime (and there's a fuck load, they're a racist bunch who hate white people out of envy), then in 100 years they'll claim any differences in outcome is due to systematic racism because of the media.

Instead, we pander them a bit now and after politics moderates a bit (we're in a sort of post cold war hang over), then we tell them to fuck off and accept that they're simply inferior people whose ancestors made the dumb idea of migrating somewhere they can't compete.

When they realise what's happened, they'll fuck off back to their own countries or accept second class status here.

Attached: IMG_3431.png (500x500, 64K)

I hope you're right, but nothing going on right now indicates that that is what will happen. Will the western values that still clings to rule here somehow survive?

How do you get "the media to report every migrant crime?" There must be a reason that rapes in Sweden and Germany are not just underreported, but are inspiring legislation that makes mentioning the race, religion, or immigration status of the rapist a crime to report.

Cool blog

Come at me with any rebuttal to the points I made. I would love to discuss.

>1
Corporations are self interested.
>2
Government is self interested.
>3
Banks are self interested.
>4
Acting on that sympathy, compassion and generosity for the benefit of outsiders is a weakness.
>5
It's human nature for people to follow the crowd.
>6
What you're talking about is a pretense. People discriminate. They discriminate for all manner of reasons.
>7
Don't shoot the messenger.
>8
When are you paying your mother back for illegally occupying her womb for 9 months and draining nutrients fro her, you filthy parasite? I bet you didn't even pay rent as a child.
>9
You're right. Sumerians perfected law and everything since then has been a slow erosion of liberty. Paid your tithe yet, fellow serf. Better get it done before you're conscripted, or your family will inherit your debt.

Yes, why give away the game plan? The only real risk is that China will subvert this and goddamn they're trying.

>inspiring legislation that makes mentioning the race, religion, or immigration status of the rapist a crime to report.
Some people don't get it and go too far thinking their virtue signalling will be rewarded.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes, but can be learned to be resisted
6. Yes, and if the discrimination is a benefit or harm one way, the same qualities should benefit or harm the other way.
7. Fair enough.
8. She volunteered that womb. I did not volunteer my occupation of it.
9. Baby-steps. Most people participating in the distorted dialogue do not even have a basic understanding of the functions of an individual, a government, or a society. It seems mostly to be overly-emotional and blind people leading the overly-emotional and blind.

>China will subvert

Can you elaborate on this?

>thinking their virtue sigalling will be rewarded

But these people are in positions of genuine influence and power. And they are intent on imposing that vision on their entire sphere of influence. What impediment do they face in Europe, realistically?

>8
You didn't pay rent as a child. You should pay your parents back. With interest. Unless you feel they owe you something because of their relationship with you, that is. Of course, that would make you a collectivist. Alternatively, you should sire children like a nigger, a true individual, leaving your spawn to fend for themselves.
>9
Humans are emotional creatures. Discounting emotion denies reality.

>I'm a redditor, the thread
keep shoving nigger ildos up your ass, faggot.
No one cares for your kiked opinion here

I don't feel they owe me anything. If they had killed me in the womb, I would not have any idea about it. I think that would undermine their own voluntary efforts, so I'm not surprised I wasn't killed as an infant. If my parents had ever asked me for rent for my childhood, I would hear them out and then tell them that I have no money and let them make the next move.

>emotion
Controlling one's emotions is a basic function of adulthood and intellectual maturity. This is actually a studied, measured phenomenon. Children who do not recognize themselves in relation to others, and the role that relationship has on their emotions, by a certain age, are deemed to be behind or underdeveloped. As adults, the way social media and mainstream media functions, it RELIES on that emotional immaturity and lack of intellectual honesty or self-awareness.

Come at me with any rebuttal to any of the points I made. I would love to discuss.

Your manifesto sucks more dick than trudau.

Well to be fair it's not like your above stated views are all that controversial or add anything here. Personally I agree with every single one of them, so I'm not really sure what more discussion can be had.

Come back to me when your list contains a single point that isn't retarded.

C'mon. Are you all intellectually hollow dimwits? Do you not see what role you will play in this type of societal shift? Drive-by criticisms with no substance or even specific argument. Belittling and condescension with nothing to justify it at all. Please, grow the fuck up. This platform is extremely valuable and is going to waste.

>a complete lack of rebuttal

Fuck, dude. C'mon.

I agree with everything except 9.

Only because not everyone has the time or intellect required for deeper study. Modern books should be streamlined and targeted to these people. They should analyze the current political climate, then make arguments for solutions backed by philosophers and histories in an easily digestible language. That's how you recruit people to your cause, and educate your base.

there you go
youtube.com/watch?v=TMTkedIUX8U

Talk about women, you faggot. You are not Gavin McInnes. Just a shill and a fag.

Attached: 42301065_1105012082987442_2128295091331137536_n.jpg (500x557, 31K)

>don't feel they owe me anything
Collectivist.
>Controlling one's emotions is a basic function of adulthood and intellectual maturity.
Wrong. People are emotional. Those emotions drive progress. A perfectly rational creature would not seek any more than comfort and subsistence. Why bother to do more than that, if you are a perfectly rational creature?

That's a fair point. But in my experience, anyone who delves into recent and topical political writing gets caught up in one side or the other without recognizing the hypocrisy of the side they choose, whereas reading about how these dynamics function in the distant and recent past sheds light on the falseness of the message; how it's all just maneuvering to gain or maintain power.

This guy is literally braindead.

What about women? How they have as much to gain from maintaining western values as anyone else?

>4. The sympathy, compassion, and generosity of the western world is starting to become a weakness instead of a virtue.
it never was a virtue and no body gives a fuck about you but yourself

Talk about the old hags running the feminist agenda, faggot. They are the reason all these moronic 3rd wave feminism happened. They were the ones pouring androgen blockers in water and everywhere, to lower testosterone in men (the biggest danger and thread, in their schizoid mind).

You are a shill.

>collectivist

How do you figure? My position is almost the opposite of collectivism. They CHOSE to feed and clothe me and could've withheld that at any time, but they CHOSE not to. If I was a collectivist, I would've demanded they cloth and feed me on account of my mere existence, and would not feel any gratitude or debt to them, which I do.

>emotions drive progress

What? That's such a broad statement. A perfectly rational creature is capable or recognizing long-term benefits of cooperation and improvements in efficiency of current systems. It doesn't take emotion to recognize those benefits; as a matter of fact, the emotionality in most issues seems to impede the effectiveness of a given project:
>oh no, there are poor people. WE SHOULD GIVE THEM MONEY! [poverty continues for another 150 years]
>oh no, my 8 yr old son has experienced confusion and uncertainty in his young age. WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE HIM TO SWITCH GENDERS. [confusion gets worse and more deadly until he either becomes a junkie or commits suicide].

>1. Corporations do NOT have anyone's best interests in mind.
Technically incorrect. Corporations have their investors best interests in mind and they will do whatever is necessary to ensure the success of their product.
2. The government does NOT have anyone's best interests in mind.
Absolutely false. Take for example the US government and how it constantly fights for jewish interests even if it means sending their own citizens to die in a war in some sandy shithole somewhere.
3. Bankers do NOT have anyone's best interests in mind.
Mostly false. Ultimately it depends on what kind of bankers you are talking about, in small towns you see bankers do what's best for their communities and on a larger scale you see them working for the benefit of a one world government and elite.
4. The sympathy, compassion, and generosity of the western world is starting to become a weakness instead of a virtue.
False. It has been a weakness for decades if not centuries.
5. Watching the news, participating in mainstream social media, and tailoring your beliefs for popular acceptance is not just dangerous, it's morally irresponsible.
True.

Attached: 1535685771873.png (1264x1828, 1.13M)

Those issues are covered by items 7 and 8.

6. Treating people differently because of their religion, their race, or their country of origin is a two-way street. Either Muslims AND Christians are judged for their religions, or neither. Either whites, blacks, and hispanics are judged for their race, or none of them are.
True.
7. If your beliefs are influenced by people who are overtly emotional, propagandistic, wealthy, or jewish, you are a simpleton whose only purpose in the wider political dialogue is to stand as an example of how NOT to think.
Mostly true. I don't think showing some emotion is a bad thing at times but I agree with the sentiment.
8. Each individual should recognize his/her autonomy and expect NOTHING from anyone. NOTHING. This will make each individual stronger, more critical, and more capable of adapting to a changing world without someone holding his/her hand.
True, but this implies getting rid of gibs and dats reiccyz
9. Reading topical books about today's politics is a complete waste of time. The classics laid out exactly how ruling systems and political individuals operate many decades and centuries ago. The ambitious journalist writing a timely expose on the current administration is adding NOTHING to the conversation. Don't waste your time.
Mostly disagree. Actually I had an idea of a system to replace our flavor of democracy the other day but I cba to write it down, I think people can come up with new ideas and they can be interesting. With that said you are probably better off reading the Jow Forums

inb4 the pic of Gavin with something going in his ass is posted

Ok. Who is running VICE? Why.

Well good. Only problem is using the conspiracy trope. Shit like the franklin scandal or Iran Contra are shoved under that term and even more heinous crimes and cover-ups. You can't just throw conspiracy theory on shit you don't want to discuss

Their interest lies solely in the share price. The share price is not a person, nor does it necessarily reflect the benefit of any specific person. Legally, corporations have to operate above and beyond the interests of any one individual, as is made manifest in the share price. That's why no advertisement, no measure, no policy is for the benefit of an individual; it's purely for the improvement of the share price.

2. The government doesn't have anyone's interests in mind.

Except those who hold power within it. The comfy elected officials, the lobbyists, the advertisers, the industrialists who benefit from certain foreign policy, etc. Not individuals or the voting citizens specifically.

3. I didn't say bankers, I said BANKS. BANKS do not have anyone's best interests in mind. They function much the same as corporations do. See above.

4. Okay, point taken.

I don't know. Is Vice still in existence?

There's a matter of historical document and then there are the theories that only exist on the Windows 98-era website with graphics and out-of-context quotes. I understand that things get degraded by throwing out the label "conspiracy theory," as a systematic effort to repress the story, but those instances, at least in my experience, survive and remain in relatively robust documents. A perfect example is the WMD scandal surrounding Iraq or (like you said) Iran Contras.

The thing that makes Jow Forums good is that it’s not a joyless and miserable shithole like most political forums. Pol tends not to take everything so seriously and are naturally suspicious of people who start to get too angry about a given thing. That’s not to say nobody really believes what they are saying, quite the opposite. Just bring it back some with the self righteous and self important rhetoric.

>How do you figure? My position is almost the opposite of collectivism. They CHOSE to feed and clothe me and could've withheld that at any time, but they CHOSE not to. If I was a collectivist, I would've demanded they cloth and feed me on account of my mere existence, and would not feel any gratitude or debt to them, which I do.
You're a welfare parasite. Entitlement much? You're using the language of a collectivist to justify gibs. Nigger.
>What? That's such a broad statement. A perfectly rational creature is capable or recognizing long-term benefits of cooperation and improvements in efficiency of current systems. It doesn't take emotion to recognize those benefits; as a matter of fact, the emotionality in most issues seems to impede the effectiveness of a given project:
Now you're talking about cooperation. Your mask is slipping, collectivist. It still doesn't explain the human drive for progress and 'efficiency' whatever that means. Civilization is a recent invention in the history of homo sapiens. Totally unnecessary for the continuation of the species. Your desire for comfort and convenience is exactly that, a desire. Not necessary for survival.

> Here are my political beliefs. No tantrums. No hyperbole.

Ok. No one disagrees with any of that. These are not political beliefs, these are "I like to drink clean water, I like to sleep in a comfy bed". So what - that's normal. Say something else.

Say something that you are willing to die for. Life is short. Civilization is a gift. How would you feel if the entire civilization ended with us? And you, being somehow a public figure, having a some minor/major role in that.

What exactly are you willing to die for? You know, Ayn Rand was willing to sacrifice herself to defend that. Just think about it: Ayn Rand.. sacrifice..

Honestly, that's a legitimate criticism. It's a bit selfish of me to expect people to entertain me with a good back-and-forth dialogue on the political issues that interest me. I'm not angry, I'm disappointed (kek). I honestly see this site and this board as one of the last platforms for genuine free speech and political discussion and I simultaneously watch it devolve into overwrought memes, senseless trolling, drive-by superficial criticisms/dismissals, and now recently, very short and quickly-pruned threads that never get off the ground, even when they are instigating discussion on meaningful topics.

In the real world, I am distancing myself from dialogue and the internet altogether. But this is a small little oasis of discussion that is decomposing before my eyes.

Welfare parasites don't talk about the nature of voluntary interactions. They simply widen the scope of what is "a human right' and then demand that the government administers said right. You're off-base here.

>the human drive for progress and efficiency

That part is intrinsic. It is something the west, perhaps more than any other part of civilization, excels at. It is programmed in our brains that a certain degree of cooperation (though stopping well short of outright conformity) facilitates the prosperity, comfort, and longevity of the species. This is through many, many generations of existence, certainly predating civilization itself.

Well, if you want to know the truth, it's this: my ten-year plan involves distancing myself from the current pillars of society - technology, marriage, offspring, materialism - because I am facing an intractable sense of alienation and unbelonging. I have not, in the last eight years, been able to make peace with the society that is developing before me and (in an admittedly cowardly fashion) I am working to withdraw from it.

I am ashamed of this, but I'm not going to deny it.

>Welfare parasites don't talk about the nature of voluntary interactions. They simply widen the scope of what is "a human right' and then demand that the government administers said right. You're off-base here.
Post hoc justifications for your parasitism will get you nowhere, collectivist. You're a drain on the resources of your parents and you don't even have the common courtesy to apologize.
>That part is intrinsic. It is something the west, perhaps more than any other part of civilization, excels at. It is programmed in our brains that a certain degree of cooperation (though stopping well short of outright conformity) facilitates the prosperity, comfort, and longevity of the species. This is through many, many generations of existence, certainly predating civilization itself.
So now you're saying that emotions shaped civilization. Yet you wish to discount them for some reason? Why?

>Parasitism

So what are you advocating? That all children apologize to their parents? And then what? Seriously, I took resources from my parents AGAINST MY WILL. Explain how that is a legitimate manifestation of collectivism.

>Emotions shaped civilizations

Not exactly. Instincts more than emotions. Actually, emotions probably follow the instincts, but we, at the present time, recognize how emotions form and have a good idea when and why they become manifest. I'm not saying we should abandon our emotions (because they certainly serve a benefit when it comes to familial obligations). But policy and societal shifts, if they rely on emotions primarily, are doomed to be ineffective and even harmful, as the historical wars on
>drugs
>povery
>communism

all show.

>That part is intrinsic. It is something the west, perhaps more than any other part of civilization, excels at. It is programmed in our brains that a certain degree of cooperation (though stopping well short of outright conformity) facilitates the prosperity, comfort, and longevity of the species. This is through many, many generations of existence, certainly predating civilization itself.
Tell me how it reflects the actions of an individualist.
> Not exactly. Instincts more than emotions.
What's the difference?

>So what are you advocating? That all children apologize to their parents? And then what? Seriously, I took resources from my parents AGAINST MY WILL. Explain how that is a legitimate manifestation of collectivism.
How is this individualism?

>I am ashamed of this, but I'm not going to deny it.

Don't be. There was a reason the Neanderthals (most advanced population in Europe, 20.000 yrs ago) retreated in at the top of the mountains. The valleys were full of savages and cannibals (read collectivists - the same genetic traits can be seen even today). That was the only way civilization survived. This is how the property rights evolved and culture was born.

So don't be ashamed, you hermit, because from this point of view everyone is doing the same. Just learn to keep alive what you have received.

(below, the oldest still inhabited Neanderthal settlement in Europe - the oldest uninhabited is at Pestera cu Oase)

youtube.com/watch?v=ZJSdmTTT4Y0

Attached: 42200174_1070163256482761_8068786687687262208_n.jpg (526x526, 44K)

Because individuals experience instincts which have been programmed over many generations. An individual choses to have or not have kids, and individual choses to defend or not defend his family. These are the manifestations of instincts, largely, but can be controlled and analyzed from a somewhat outside perspective (not entirely, though). So if a person individually feels that they will experience more fulfillment and joy from having children, he will pursue that. He does not need to feel a duty or debt to his parents or ancestors or society to take that course of action, as a collectivist might.

>What's the difference.

That's a really profound question. The way I see it is that emotions are short-term, immediate reactions to current stimuli and can be tempered or adjusted with experience. Instincts, in my experience, sort of provide the foundation on which all other choices and emotions take place/are experienced.

I didn't say that children are individualists. I asked you what you're advocating.

1. Your initial statement was that these corporations "do not have anyone's best interests in mind". Now to give an example let's say a company that sells water bootles doesn't have their customers best interests, then they will be outcompeted by some other company who sells healthier water. I do agree there needs to be some control and breaking of monopolies so they wouldn't all start pumping lead into the water or whatever but to say they don't have their customers interests in mind is blatantly false as this would decrease their profit margins. When Amazon is overworking their employees so their products reach the costumer faster or when Apple installs suicide nets in some chinese factory so that their product is cheaper, they are having their costumers interests in mind. The only reason they do it is of course to maximize their profits, so the costumer's interests are just a means to an end.

2. Well your original point was "anyone's best interests" which is clearly false as you can see in pic related the US government is working overtime for Israeli citizens interests. But yes it is true our governments are enslaved and corrupt. It doesn't have to be that way.

3. I was going to write how monetizing debt forces banks to worry for your interests but I feel like a need a shower just for thinking of larping as a (((banker)))

Attached: embassy.jpg (1440x720, 234K)

>emotions aren't emotions when I like them
Seriously though, just like 'instinct' is a part of our biological make-up, so are emotions. Deny them and you deny human nature.
>Because individuals experience instincts which have been programmed over many generations. An individual choses to have or not have kids, and individual choses to defend or not defend his family. These are the manifestations of instincts, largely, but can be controlled and analyzed from a somewhat outside perspective (not entirely, though). So if a person individually feels that they will experience more fulfillment and joy from having children, he will pursue that. He does not need to feel a duty or debt to his parents or ancestors or society to take that course of action, as a collectivist might.
Why though? You realize such notions are a modern invention, don't you? For the majority of human history, say 200,000 years or so, identity was based on tribal allegiance and position within that tribe. What are you basing your backward philosophy on? The ideals of enlightenment era anarchists that undermined the established aristocratic hierarchy?

>NO MORE BULLSHIT; REAL TALK ONLY
please tell me you aren't white
>Here are my political beliefs
no one cares you underage faggot. but ive come thus far in responding i suppose ill continue after all.
>1
corporations serve those invested by law financially. they may not be moral or long term beneficial to our species in how they do it (ie literally replacing white people with 3rd world labor [though even that is debatable because its yet another form of darwinism/eugenics]) buuuut they almost unquestionably try to keep the value of the company going up.
>2
its way, wayyyyy more complicated than that you underage sophomoric faggot
>3
bankers? which ones? again, if its a corporation it may fuck over every not invested, but that doesn't defeat my point.
>4
now we're getting somewhere.
>5
tv is for untermench but i don't think theres anything wrong with keeping up with world events so long as you're mature enough to recognize that everyone has a bias and an agenda.
>6
yes and no. i judge the individual, and while i would most certainly agree that the "white race" produces retarded individuals every bit as evil and worthless as all the other races, i'd also argue things like forced desegregation are morally reprehensible and can empathize slightly more with the stereotypical white untermench as he is being displaced in his homeland- my homeland - for people who statistically commit more crime and are undoubtedly on average shitty neighbors
>7
lol the irony is, your views are inadvertently formed by all of those things. what does the anti-conformist do? he conforms to his idea of what the opposite of society is.
>8
agreed, though much easier said than done. you should expect the unexpected.
>9
yea i remember when i was underage and knew everything

>healthier water, breaking up monopolies, lead in the water, etc. would cause a drop in profits

That is the most blatant demonstration that corporations do not behave in ways that benefit the consumer, but in ways that grow profits and therefore share price. To imply that using slave labour or NOT putting lead in the water comes from a beneficent place in the corporate heart to help the consumers is demonstrably false and disingenuous.

>the only reason they do so is to maximize their profits...the customer's interests are a means to an end

Yes. You just debunked everything you said prior to that and appear to completely agree with my initial statement.

>anyone's best interests

The argument I'm making is that the government doesn't function in any meaningful way towards the benefit of the citizens over which it governs, so it's naive to interpret ANY of the government's actions as coming from a place of benevolence. It, much like that of the corporation, acts in a way to maximize profits. The profits of a government may very well be tax revenue, but it is more likely to be the maintenance and extension of power and control.

3.
I think if you wrote that out, you would end up coming full circle like you did on point number 1.

>emotions

No, emotions are the basic, knee-jerk reaction to an external stimuli. Humans, are the dominant species because we are capable of analyzing and tempering our emotions in real time. I don't wish to deny emotions, I just wish to minimize their role in long-term, societal decision-making. Because appeals to emotion are faulty and ineffective, generally speaking.

>such notions are a modern invention

That's irrelevant. If the genes can survive without one's identity being based entirely on tribal identity, then the genes and instincts survive. I'm not saying individualism is intrinsically toxic or undermining, nor am I saying that it's functional. You still haven't told me what you're advocating.

Gavin McInnes is hilarious. 50 year old man that is more desperate to be cool than a 13 year old boy. Thinks he was part of the punk scene even though he doesn't have enough talent to ever play an instrument even in a punk band. Hipster faggot that has a gaggle of single mother raised white collar pussies flock after him desperately seeking a father figure.

>Seriously though, just like 'instinct' is a part of our biological make-up, so are emotions.

There are these "mirror neurons" in the frontal lobes that mimic the expressions and "feelings" you see in others when you look at their faces, bodies etc. This is why normal people are capable to personalize objects that look like a human, see symbols in clouds, see emotions in dogs (less in cats) and so on. In the cortex they are structured in 4 to 6 distinct layers, in a hierarchy starting with the senses and ending with abstract concepts. Bonding with someone follows the same principle - you need a compatible structure to bond / you cannot love a mass murderer, for example.

Psychopaths have less activity in the frontal part of the brain. They see the knife entering a body but don't "feel" any pain, because these mirror neurons are not firing as they should. That's why even the common anesthetics could lower the agency / empathy / conscience in someone.

Instincts are the natural selection over thousands of years of these mechanisms at work. Niggers and chins adapted to a different environment where these brain adaptations were not useful at all, but a drag.

>1
Yes. That is exactly my assertion.

>2
Okay.

>3
You have not said anything that disagrees with my point. Most people here are infusing judgments into plain statements. That governments, banks, and corporations don't serve the best interests of the citizens or their customers does not mean they must be abolished for that reason.

>6
Your accurately dismantling the policy, but not the statement I made. My point is that if Muslims are inferior for clinging to a barbaric religion, so must be the other, more civilized cultures who cling to a barbaric religion. Same with races.

>7
I'm not an anti-conformist, at least not the definition you imply (having a blanket set of contrarian beliefs). I have stated some fundamental beliefs I have about the things that influence our politics and society.

>9
It's quite the opposite, actually. It's a beautiful thing to recognize that so many different writers and thinkers from different cultures, centuries, and systems all came to many of the same conclusions about human nature, the corruption that follows concentrated power, the intrinsic greed of humanity, the dysfunction of central government, etc. It's not about knowing everything. It's about stepping back from the opinions that are most loudly expressed NOW because they fit very nicely with the CURRENT issues happening in the news, published in a book that was rushed to the printers so profits could be maximized while people were still paying attention to said current issue.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

>the corporate heart
I'm not saying anything about their heart, in order for them to maximize their profits (which is their sole motivation) they have to worry about their customer's best interests or else their business will fail. I don't see how using slave labour is an invalid example here, if their customers preferred to buy Iphones made in USA then they would be losing profits and shifting their factories to the US. Their customers interests are directly correlated to their profits. Maybe you need to expand on what you mean by "having someone else's interests in mind" because it seems to me like you are amazed that corporations do not have the same considerations for your well-being that your mother does which is well, no shit, but that doesn't mean they have 0 considerations as they would be losing profits.

>it's naive to interpret ANY of the government's actions as coming from a place of benevolence
The government is different in the way that the people in power have a very limited power. Short term democracy is a failure. If we had long term democracy with only certain groups of people allowed to vote things would change pretty fast.

Define what you mean by "best interests" and if it equates to motherly love because if so then the whole discussion is just silly.

The point is that the profit margin is the primary objective. If there was a way to increase profits alongside lower customer satisfaction, is there a corporation in the world that could legally choose customer satisfaction over profits. The answer is an unequivocal no.

Best interests is, in my opinion, impossible when authority is involved. Yes, a parent has authority over their child and this can be wielded to secure the best or worst interests of the child. But with the government, the implication is that because a) they're elected and b) they are funded entirely by tax revenue, they must act in accordance with the will of the people, is completely false. They, instead, are motivated by the desires of corporations and their lobbyists, and other political influencers who don't speak for the majority or even the minority of the citizens. They speak for business and monetary interests almost exclusively. The only motivation I've seen to supersede this is that which extends or increases the power/authority of the current establishment.

>No, emotions are the basic, knee-jerk reaction to an external stimuli. Humans, are the dominant species because we are capable of analyzing and tempering our emotions in real time. I don't wish to deny emotions, I just wish to minimize their role in long-term, societal decision-making. Because appeals to emotion are faulty and ineffective, generally speaking.
I disagree. Appeals to emotion are quite effective. You can't outlaw feelings, user. How would you even enforce such a measure?
>That's irrelevant. If the genes can survive without one's identity being based entirely on tribal identity, then the genes and instincts survive.
If. If they can survive. Which has a better chance of survival and passing on genes, an individual or a group?
>I'm not saying individualism is intrinsically toxic or undermining, nor am I saying that it's functional.
You didn't invent the language we're using. You didn't invent the internet either.
>You still haven't told me what you're advocating.
I'm not advocating anything. I'm challenging your conception of 'truth.'

shut up faggot

Attached: usa-homicide-vs-suicide.jpg (790x630, 48K)

>you can't outlaw feelings

I don't wish to. I want those who are participating in politics to minimize the influence of their emotions on their political opinions and judgments.

>If they can survive; individual or group
They way I see it now, some large-scale concepts do require group cooperation but most individuals can survive to procreate without being particularly active or imbedded in the cultural norms around them.

>language and the internet
I'm not claiming that collectivism has no benefits or individualism can function in its most extreme manifestation. I'm saying that emotions thrust movements into spirals which become less effective the more hysterical and mob-like they become. Individuality is a good medium through which to become an effective member of society, to the extent that you think that is beneficial to your way of life.

>challenging your conception of truth
Alright.

>I don't wish to. I want those who are participating in politics to minimize the influence of their emotions on their political opinions and judgments.
Never going to happen. Unless you place an AI in charge. Then governance would be sterile and automated.
>They way I see it now, some large-scale concepts do require group cooperation but most individuals can survive to procreate without being particularly active or imbedded in the cultural norms around them.
Wrong. This a modern conceit. Most humans in history did not reproduce. For about 200,000 years, 17 women reproduced for every male, many women died in childbirth, many children died in infancy. Look it up. Survival is a numbers game.
>I'm not claiming that collectivism has no benefits or individualism can function in its most extreme manifestation. I'm saying that emotions thrust movements into spirals which become less effective the more hysterical and mob-like they become. Individuality is a good medium through which to become an effective member of society, to the extent that you think that is beneficial to your way of life.
The self interests of government, corporations and banks are bad. But the self interest of the individual is a virtue?

> If there was a way to increase profits alongside lower customer satisfaction, is there a corporation in the world that could legally choose customer satisfaction over profits. The answer is an unequivocal no.
Sure but what's the point of this hypothetical? The reality is that customers interests are related to profits so it would be suicidal for a corporation to just disregard their customers interests.

>Best interests is, in my opinion, impossible when authority is involved.
So when the police locks up a murderer is this going against the best interests of the community because they have authority? How do you know a parent is acting in accordance to the will of the child? Do you think it's rational to have someone else's best interests in mind if it's to your detriment?

>1
i'd argue the way you initially asserted it is wrong or misleading. on a personal note, unless you plan on becoming a hermit in the woods i suggest you invest in these sociopathic corporations AND prepare for self-reliance. look out for your own best interest as the game always has and always will be in their favor, and if it ever isn't your quality of life will be at the barbaric levels you prepared for so who cares
>2
rare. earth.
>3
we're he're arguing with your points because you said you would defend them. i have a lawyer brain which can take any side for the sake of debate (now im saying things no one cares about too)
>6
i believe barbarism is a valid way of running a society. i also believe communism is a valid way of running a society.. but guess what? i'm an american so i have no qualms with killing those who threaten the stability (short term or long term) of my society. its not necessarily a "good" thing, but nature favors the strong regardless unfortunately, and someone must be on top as is the nature of man.
7. i'm not calling you anti- conformist, i'm trying to explain to you that some of your opinions will inadvertently be formed by the likes of antifa - even if its formed completely negatively, we are being influenced by emotional idiots- understand?
>9
i was just talking extra trash to make sure you responded, and i get what you are saying. one could argue so many good books have written already that you could go the rest of your life without touching anything contemporary. fair. however i think geopolitics has changed greatly over the centuries. whereas we had fought many nations in the past over ideological reasons, we fight today mostly over control of non-renewables. while the basic principle of government existing for control remains timeless, technology and globalization have truly put us in a "New World" that is unique to history.

>survival is a numbers game
You're referring to the species. I'm saying that in the modern world, a human doesn't have to be particularly intelligent or imbedded in the society norms to produce offspring.

>the self interest of the individual is a virtue
Yes, because that is an entity acting on its on behalf. Its risks are its own, its profits are its own, its labour is its own. When you expand that to a monolithic system like a corporation or a government, those institutions can no longer function to the benefit of individuals except those who use their authority and influence to benefit to the detriment of the masses.

>the reality is that customers interests are related to profits

That's not a meaningful state. Profits are also related to the environment and to the president and to the location of the earth in its revolution around the sun. Doesn't mean that those things are a primary or even secondary consideration of those who make the decisions for the company. I started with the statement: Corporations do NOT have anyone's best interests in mind. And it's true. The share price is not a person, but that is what all decisions are tailored towards.

>how do you know a parent is acting in the best will of the child

You don't. That's precisely the point. A parent brought the child into this world, but they aren't granted special authority over THE REST OF SOCIETY in their decision making. They only hold authority over the child they created. A government, or a corporation, however, wields a lot more influence and authority and, similarly, can NOT be assumed to be acting in the best interest of any individual or collective party, except those directly in ownership of the shares.

You have my full support, leaf-bro, though #8 can often be taken too far, but as a stopgap for, say, sucking on the teet of the state it is more than sensible, which is how I read it.

youtube.com/watch?v=PoKDYQkDDA0

>ou're referring to the species. I'm saying that in the modern world, a human doesn't have to be particularly intelligent or imbedded in the society norms to produce offspring.
An individual can't produce offspring. Only a group can.
>Yes, because that is an entity acting on its on behalf. Its risks are its own, its profits are its own, its labour is its own. When you expand that to a monolithic system like a corporation or a government, those institutions can no longer function to the benefit of individuals except those who use their authority and influence to benefit to the detriment of the masses.
Monolithic systems minimize risk and make labour more efficient. Profits are an abstract, a store of value that require monolithic systems to redeem.

>1
I plan to live a hermit lifestyle about 4-6 months out of the year.

>3
I will defend them against rebuttal or counter-argument. When I said that bankers do not hold anyone's best interests in mind, I was implying that profits and the share or asset holders make decisions purely to improve the financial performance of the institution. This doesn't imply that banks should behave any other way, it's simply stating that that's how they operate, so people should not interpret "deals" and "advertisements" and central planning schemes (like the federal reserve) as existing for their benefit, as law-abiding, tax-paying, voting citizens.

>6
I agree with all of that, I think.

>7
Sure. The globe is very deeply connected between most of its individuals and every single input must in some way mold one's beliefs. My point was that people get caught up in topical narratives that lack nuance and wisdom and instead try to maintain tallies for purely political (rather than logical, rational, beneficial, or generous) gains. It's easy to get caught in that vortex and lose grip of the bigger picture.

>9
>technology and globalization have put us in a world that is unique to history

And this, on the surface, rings true. But I think I disagree with the overall point. Amidst all the rapid technological changes, what emerges and continues to govern how things manifest themselves always comes back to the fundamentals of human nature. Some of those aspects seem exaggerated, but nothing has yet transcended the principles we've read about throughout history. An example: social media didn't create vanity or self-consciousness; it mere facilitated the expression of those traits on a hyperactive scale. I started reading Emerson's essays recently and he makes observations (in the 1840s) that could stand today as just as insightful observations as they did then because, no matter the medium, humanity shows itself in all things in which is partakes.

>6. Treating people differently because of their religion, their race, or their country of origin is a two-way street. Either Muslims AND Christians are judged for their religions, or neither. Either whites, blacks, and hispanics are judged for their race, or none of them are.
Ok. When you have a religion whose primary tenants command that the believers must lie. cheat. and steal- even murder, non believers in the advancement of their God and his followers, should they be considered Terrorists? Enemies of the State maybe?

Attached: 567653456.jpg (1024x1024, 525K)

>an individual can't produce offspring

No, but two individuals can produce two offspring.

>store of value that require monolithic systems to redeem

Indeed. But when the institution becomes monolithic, it cannot redeem those profits while keeping the individuals below it as the primary beneficiaries. Not even close. I like that you used the word abstract, because that's what a share price is, really. It's an abstract representation of the performance of the institution in relation to the consumers in the market. And individuals have rights and experience pleasure and emotion on an individual basis, so can't be directly linked to something like the performance of a corporation.

you're cool with me leaf bro. i won't argue with you anymore for the sake of argument. we agreed from the start. sorry for being a dick

You should try getting a job someday.

What if your religion's tenets state that those who work on the sabbath must be whipped?

My point is if you're going to cast judgment on a made-up system of beliefs for its primitiveness, hold all made-up systems of primitive beliefs to the same standards. Don't split hairs because today, in this moment, one seems worse than the other.

I enjoyed the discussion. Thanks bro.

I work 40-60 hrs a week and make good money for my troubles.

>What if your religion's tenets state that those who work on the sabbath must be whipped?
What is a Strawman argument to avoid answering a question for $500, Alex
Here is the question again:
When you have a religion whose primary tenants command that the believers must lie. cheat. and steal- even murder, non believers in the advancement of their God and his followers, should they be considered Terrorists?
Quit being a cunt, answer the question, faggot.

Attached: AncapResponseTeam.jpg (1920x1440, 438K)

>No, but two individuals can produce two offspring.
In principle. Assuming they're of the opposite sex and fertile. No guarantee they'll agree to mate. To guarantee the continuation of their genes, they'll need a pool of prospective mates to draw from. Their offspring, if any, will need access to that pool as well.
>Indeed. But when the institution becomes monolithic, it cannot redeem those profits while keeping the individuals below it as the primary beneficiaries.
What are you talking about? My employer deposits my salary into a bank. I redeem it by withdrawing cash or waving a debit card.

Eliminate monolithic institutions and you do away with law. You do away with the protections of government. You do away with all of the comforts and conveniences of the modern world. Or do you plan on paving your own roads and building your own power plant from resources you mined yourself. I assume you'll refrigerate the produce that you farm yourself. Or are you dependent on the collective for these conveniences?

> Corporations do NOT have anyone's best interests in mind. And it's true. The share price is not a person, but that is what all decisions are tailored towards.
Maybe not 100% their best interests that's why I asked you to compare it to motherly love, but other than that, they do. By caring about profits they are forced to care about their customers interests, you are trying to separate the two when they are interconnected. It's absolutely meaningful.

>You don't. That's precisely the point.
So if you can't even tell me that a mother has her child's best interests in mind, it just seems to me like your standard for what "best interests" means can only come from the individual itself. I wouldn't be surpised if you try to one up it and say that even an individual doesn't have his own best interests in mind, so I have to ask do we? Do you have your own best interests in mind?

The way I see it your argument is all about defining what "best interests" means. I would say someone who voted for Trump just to flip the finger at lefties had their "best interests" served. But really do they? Does that put food on the table? "Best interests" is a blackhole with no finality.

>1 post by this canadian id

>based and redpilled gavin poster

Attached: 17200862.jpg (480x360, 16K)

Isn't that the prolapse guy.
>tfw no shame showing your gaped jew mailbox.

Attached: 1536446587648.jpg (836x727, 105K)

Maybe this really was the Canuck Cuck™ himself. What a fucking faggot. Tosses out some pre prepared anthem shit and Strawmans the only serious question and runs away like a fucking faggot

Enjoy your new nickname, coward..

Attached: 1533348422673.jpg (541x480, 78K)

What do you think about the Nazis leaf?

Attached: CFB243A9-E666-4444-91FC-100018DF7CB8.jpg (577x1024, 65K)

Start by reading this: And all of these:

archive.4plebs.org/_/search/boards/pol.x/subject/Knowledge Bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/!!9O2tecpDHQ6/

>8. Each individual should recognize his/her autonomy and expect NOTHING from anyone. NOTHING. This will make each individual stronger, more critical, and more capable of adapting to a changing world without someone holding his/her hand.
A lot of people are incapable of being fully autonomous because they lack the intellect. It is beneficial for them if some decisions are made for them. Individualism mostly serves a bourgeois minority. Half of the population has an IQ below average, these people can still be useful but they need someone to guide them.

>in principle

Yes. The individual may or may not care about the long-term perpetuation of the species at large. But if he cares about producing his own offspring, that may be the extent of it. He may or may not be successful, but he does not require a village, so to speak.

>what are you talking about
Your employee depositing your wage into the bank is not his service or his business. The goal of the business instead to make sure Mr. user gets paid. That's an expense. If YOU founded a business, your motivation may be to deposit money into your personal bank account, but you can't found a business on that principle.

>do away with the protections, etc.

Not saying that's desirable at all. I'm saying to think and develop your beliefs without the expectation of service, support, or protection because YOU, as an individual, is the only person who could be fundamentally charged with the task of providing yourself with support and protection. No other institution is better designed to function with that goal in mind. To go all hysterical on me. The premise was:
>each individual should recognize his own autonomy and expect nothing from anyone...

Who ran away?

>when you have a religion whose primary tenets....

No, not terrorists. They should be considered primitive barbarians with a primitive and barbaric religion. Next question?

agree with everything except 8

especially when it comes to health care, education and housing

that is all

I'm kind of torn. I don't oppose all of their goals, but certainly despise the means. I have a strange obsession with Hitler as a person and have a deep interest in the formation of the party and their rise to power. But the fascism and propaganda is intrinsically repulsive to me.