Whites differ in degree, not principle, to Minorities
Whites have the same choice- to plunder or to produce- as minorities, but Whites know that
production is more more profitable
than pillaging. Whereas for
minorities, they gain more from
pillaging than producing.
Modern governance is not "how to cooperate to build," but
1. for leftists, how to extort
2. for rightists, how to minimize extortion
"Right-wing" people support massive extortion for the military, so saying they want to minimize extortion isn't right - they want extortion for the things THEY like.
It's the same with basically everyone - the vast majority of mankind are opportunists, and will always advocate for what is factually extortion - but that they won't ever recognize as such - if that extortion is for "things they like".
cute
Yes. But the degrees are different.
See how many times this thread has been made.
archive.4plebs.org
>The more something is said, the less it matters.
Check your premises
The evil white majority strikes again!
Would you mind defending that claim?
I feel like when people talk about "left" and "right" colloquially that they're referring to people who don't in practice really differ in degree.
>Would you mind defending that claim?
By the right, I mean the conservatives more than the Republicans.
But perhaps I should of said libertarians vs socialists instead.
its a good thing she had a nice brain cause nothing else about her is alluring
I think you'd have to MEAN libertarians vs socialists, since the typical conservative defends military welfare and - if they're older - also medicare/social security.
The only things they don't want are higher taxes (for themselves), while progressives want essentially retributive taxes against "wealthy" people. The qualitative differences in these people's actual views are ridiculously slim.
>its a good thing she had a nice brain cause nothing else about her is alluring
Check your premises
>pink hair
Begone degenerate.
as an ex libshit with plenty of conservative connections from normies this is essentially the way politics looks to anyone outside the rabbit hole.
>jap with brunette hair
begone sjw thot
fuck off tripfag
kill yourself commie
That's the way politics is. It's not a matter of mere appearance. John McCain is a "conservative" and Bill Clinton is a "liberal" and anything that falls outside either of their ideologies can't possibly be "reasonable" but must be "radical" or otherwise fantastic.
I did and am still stand by my proposed conclusion.
Check your categories
never read any kant
Just finished a non-fiction series of essays by Rand and started The Republic today. Next will come Aristotle, Nietzsche, Freud. IDK how much there is to gain as a libertarian even with the knowledge of how man should be and treat his fellow man and how the government should be it won't change anything. In fact its making me depressed.
There is nothing valuable in Freud - don't waste your time. There are few people I'm willing to say that about.
You don't need the world to change, you just need to have yourself right in the world. The idea that everything must be sane is something you ought to shake if you hold it; recognize that most people don't have any real intellectual investment in anything they believe. They live from day to day and accept what they accept without much thought or import given to it. The fact that they don't really care is what's important to keep in mind, since it helps in being able to deal with people parroting stupid things to know that they have no real investment in what they're parroting.
>Freud
Drive Theory is wrong.
Drive Theory states that our actions are driven by subconscious urges- which are
innate and unchosen, which we cannot vanquish, only suppress.
The fact is that we are act according to our values- which are consciously chosen.
>but how do we learn to eat and fuck?
By sensory response and/or imitation.
>but we don't choose to breath
That is not action, as one does not choose to breathe- it's autonomous action.
The fact is that we are not born with drives, and that our actions are the result of us acting to achieve our values. Just as you choose to be fat, you choose to be gay.
Instincts are another (false) god.
"God wants me to act this way."
"Instinct makes me acts this way."
Read
Hayek's Fatal Conceit.. how customs and cultures formed
Mises Human Action... Understanding cost/benefits of actions
Hayek's Road to Serfdom... How Trump is like Hitler... Which isn't totally bad
Hobbes Leviathan... Similar to Hillary action, more on culture of people
Rand's lecture: Conservatism, an Obituary
Skip anything by Rothbard.
>The idea that everything must be sane is something you ought to shake if you hold it
" even the behavior of neurotics and psychopaths is mean- ingful, that they too act and aim at ends, aIthough we who consider ourselves normal and sane call the reasoning determining their choice of ends nonsensical and the means they choose for the attainment of these ends contrary to purpose"
Mises, Human Action
On the indoctrinated:
"Education, whatever benefits it may confer, is transmission of traditional doctrines and valuations; it is by necessity conservative. It produces imitation and routine, not improvement and progress. Innovators and creative geniuses cannot be reared in schools. They are precisely the men who defy what the school has taught them."
Mises
From what I understand a lot of what makes up a persons identity and self image is determined in infancy and childhood. I am not interested in Freud's philosophy as much as I want to use his work to better understand people in my own life so I can sympathize and get along with them easier, my mother for example is sever neurotic, compulsive and has addictive behaviors and cannot under any circumstance where it is not to her benefit be reasoned with. Philosophy helps me to grow and understand myself in the world but not necessarily all of those around me. Most of her family had died to illness and unfortunate accidents when she was young, and before that there was alcoholism present in the home- I would like to better understand why that influenced the way she is now.
As for most people not holding intellectual investment in what they believe, it is then what I come to understand your saying, is that most people lack true convictions and morals that they stand by, to which I agree, and if I may add, the few men that to hold certain principles often do so with contradiction when it serves them, leaving even fewer men whom are truly just in their being. That doesn't leave you feeling isolated? I've yet to meet anyone who does not cave to hypocrisy. One fear it certainly leaves a person who desires to one day have a family, to be complete, is cold reality that you will have to settle with someone whose mind has been asleep all their life and its a sleep only they can wake themselves of. How few must the women be of this world who let reason guide them and desire truth above all else; standing by it even when it is not to their immediate benefit. Am I to accept anything less? It would seem I am left with no choice
Tell me though user, do you choose to be attracted to the type of girl you post?
>the few men that to hold certain principles often do so with contradiction when it serves them
The academy is so ridiculously rife with blatant examples of this that it's not even necessary to simply observe how consistently this is the case among mere laymen. You'll see men advocate one thing - such as Calvinists originally advocating something akin to passive obedience to state authorities - and then when they find themselves persecuted by those authorities that they'd hoped to ally themselves with they scramble to come up with some ridiculous new justification for why they AREN'T obligated to passive obedience.
You see so much of this in literature that it's just mindboggling that these people could ever sleep with themselves, given the extremely clear shallowness of whatever beliefs they may have pretended to have held as principle.
And no - I do feel incredibly isolated intellectually. But you ought to recognize that such is an unavoidable norm - it's a consequence of the discrepency in value that you or I may hold in regard to truth and how the average person holds truth. They care about their family life, their happiness, their social relations - these hold primacy to most people. Truth, principle, intellectual honesty - these things are of secondary value.
You don't need to adopt that mode of valuation; all you need to do is not begrudge others their own value schemes. Which is easy when you just recognize that they don't really care about any annoyingly unreasonable or incorrect thing they might meet you with.
>Tell me though user, do you choose to be attracted to the type of girl you post?
I'm attracted to Anzu as art.
STOP POSTING THIS DISGUSTING BALD ROACH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>""""""""""""girl"""""""""""
>Intellectually lonely
Reading Atlas Shrugged tells you that others have struggled with those who are ignorant by choice.
Where I part with the typical libertarian is the vulnerability to human shields:
"Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to [impede her without cause]."
Atlas Shrugged
DON'T MAKE ANZU SAD
I don't like that word choice - "ignorant by choice".
It implies more consciousness than people actually have toward matters of ethics or philosophy in general in using the word "choice".
It's like saying I'm a not-saxophone player by choice - I never made any decision to avoid learning to play the saxophone, I just never had any interest or gave the prospect of playing the saxophone any thought ever.
True enough. One thing I often forget and must remind myself of (you did just that) is contradictions in a persons principles or even a lack thereof- doesn't mean they are evil or even unjust (perhaps unjust, but not intentionally so) The easiest example is that my entire family would agree, that, if a homeless man came to my door, coerced me to give him money, or to face the consequence, then it would certainly be theft, even if the cause was "just" (helping the needy) But if the man at the door is wearing a suit and tie, and ID indicating he works for Revenue Canada and it is so that I must pay or face the consequence, to fund welfare. (help the needy) then it is "the price you must pay for living in this beautiful country) Of course my family isn't evil for the failure to realize that on philosophical level nor are they evil when they still fail to realize the truth when I inform them a mans freedom is temporary at best and non existent at worse when there is a gang(s) of people who, for no other justification then "the greater good" can get away with what no ordinary man can so long as they stay a gang, so long as they stay the ruler.
(sorta related- only recently did I come to the realization that even a rape victim, unless it will put the mothers life in jeopardy, may not destroy human life prior to this I, myself carried contradictions in my beliefs)
I read it as implying the intellectual interacts with the ignorant by their own discretion
(and so they are choosing to make themselves feel the way they do?)
>I don't like that word choice - "ignorant by choice".
>It implies more consciousness than people actually have toward matters of ethics or philosophy in general in using the word "choice".
I don't believe people are blind to their choices. They may rarely be conscious of philosophical issues, but they choose this.
"I feel the same as everyone else, only more consciously." Rand
Having that understanding of others as not really being invested in many of the things they seem to accept is important; both because it's clearly true and because it helps maintain sanity when you recognize the banality behind much of the craziness you see propagated. I've definitely been in that place where I've felt like everything is just so ludicrously insane and people so unwilling to even talk about the issues that I've felt depressed about it.
>I don't believe people are blind to their choices
If you were blind to a choice I'd hesitate to call it a choice in the first place.
It's a choice in the strictest sense of the word - as in, you're doing something as opposed to the innumerable alternatives that you might have chosen - but pretending people are consciously considering alternatives and rejecting them is to not be looking at people properly. Most people do not look at, say, the nature of law and lawmaking in their societies and make a conscious determination that their ethical intuitions or principles are either aligned or at odds with their laws or lawmaking processes.
They don't even consider the topic at all, ever. They're not interested.
i'd fuck that boy
>but Whites know that production is more more profitable
what was the entirety of the colonial/imperial era?
In regards to the general idea that whites (generally) prefer to produce then to loot I would agree- but it is not only so for whites. IQ must play a role as Jews and Asians also value production as individuals, but it would seem as a system of governing they are split, however in their own countries they tend to vote for less wealth redistribution which lends more credence to an argument that "nationalist" or "patriots" especially when race is involved, tend to value their individual liberty more then any group.
Still though, whites are responsible for democracy and more importantly capitalism which by its nature is the only freedom based system, and we tend to support it the most, globally. I think more can be explored on the topic.
G2G bed hopefully threads still up in the morning. a nice discussion took place
(still gonna read Freuds psycho analysis as the books already bought)
>They don't even consider the topic at all, ever. They're not interested.
Or, have they been taught contradictions, given no map, and life disallusioned?
The difference is simply that they are not us and we are not them.
They seek to see us destroyed, we seek to see them destroyed.
This is all the reasoning that matters.
I work to make sure it is we that survive.
They have been taught contradictions, but again - that's not a matter of critical thought. That's a matter of a distinct and obvious lack of critical thought.
And can't you post anime girls or something? Anything is better than a trap.
>They have been taught contradictions, but again - that's not a matter of critical thought. That's a matter of a distinct and obvious lack of critical thought.
I agree. Just slightly differing framework of thought, it perhaps definitions.
" Wherever the conditions for human interference are present, man acts no matter whether he interferes or refrains from interfering. He who endures what he could change acts no less than he who interferes in order to attain another result. A man who abstains from influencing the operation of physiological and instinctive factors which he could influence also acts. Action is not only doing but no less omitting to do what possibly could be done"
>And can't you post anime girls or something? >Anything is better than a trap.
Anime is fine, but Anzu was BORN with a vagina.
And look at these milkers.
It's parasites vs hosts.
Government balance is finding the maximum extortion possible.
>IQ
Culture is a codeterminant of European success.