This book ruined my life, I can't be assed to do anything now since the system is rigged from the get-go

It's much worse than that: it's not rigged. You should enjoy the illusion that someone is ín control.

Capital volume I

Nothing personal, kid.

Attached: 1557175024546.jpg (1024x1012, 89K)

Jews (and Anglos) are like worms infecting a wound, the fact that the wound was there is a defect of the system itself.

Yeah it's like it's now an organism of it's own, devouring it's hosts. Like how Jews conjure up golems who then turn against them.

But I thought Deng was a Communist who was working on development of the productive forces of society until such time as Communism could be established

Fun fact, this shit was nothing new.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
They even brought in The Ford company in to make tractors for them IIRC.

Shouldn't China have built socialism by now? The NEP only ran for 7 years.

>The NEP only ran for 7 years.
Because Stalin killed it.

youtube.com/watch?v=JOLWBoFsufY

Yeah Deng was a commie who thought markets would develop China. I don't get why he's called a neoliberal. Gorbachev should be put in his place.

>Stalin ruined the Revolution but Deng and his sucessors are fulfilling it
I've never seen this tankie take before.

Now go read some Philip Mirowski.

chapos are so bad memes, it's actually sad. no wonder you guys keep losing the culture war.

Why do all a ones say this?
>Chinas jut playing capitalism until they establish communism

China is an authoritarian capitalist country? They call themselves communist but private owners hips I'd definitely a ting. And it's paying off big time, this mixed economy, so why kill it?

>...Slowly wormed themselves into influencing state power to conjure up a contradictory system that overrides its ideological presuppositions

You're more or less right, but you're missing a very important aspect of this paradigm. The people who are in power do not see themselves as belonging to the same society that they are ruling over. At best they have little interest in continuing it, as in the case with many of the upper class Asians and Indians who get into power and then naturally use their positions to promote their people's interests rather than American (read: White American) interests. Often it is even worse than that, in that they are often fundamentally hostile to the "ideological presuppositions" as you put it, and they see them as this distasteful foreign thing being imposed upon them (hence all the hooting and hollering about "White supremacy" when generally they just mean the promotion of White norms and expectations). While leftists are correct in that those who are in power have created this position where they "override the ideological presuppositions" of the society, it is not contradictory to them, because those ideological presuppositions are not ones they actually hold. When Jews in power talk about how they want to promote equality while also largely adhering to strict gender roles and promoting the interests of their ethnostate in the middle east, it isn't a contradictory position. They are pushing the idea that we follow "our rules" (which they have had significant influence over in the last century) while they get to follow theirs because they fundamentally do not see themselves as part of our society.

Again, this probably doesn't apply to average prole customers at the Jewish deli near you or whatever, but if you think that the elite class of Jews aren't sending their children to explicitly Jewish schools and giving them an education which explicitly tells them that Jews are a separate entity from Western/white society and that they need to promote their own interests first, you're not paying attention. When leftists miss this understanding that the ruling class fundamentally do not believe themselves of the same society, so they don't have much interest in ruling in favor of it's interests, they back themselves into a corner where they see simultaneously global universalism and the fungibility between people, and want authentic and unique cultures to emerge without an oppressive caste hierarchy. You get one, you get isolation and racialized society with care for the lower classes via ethnic/racial brotherhood, or you get a situation where most people's of the world are ruled over by the ethnic group who is willing to fight for their own team and has the skills and potential to make it to the top at all costs. You get strong walls making good neighbors, or you get China building massive infrastructure in eastern Africa so they can genocide all the black Africans once America is too weak to stop them.

It's going to kill itself. There are no reasonable democratic controls, as such the system will develop cancerous corruption in record time. Especially in China the formation of a hereditary aristocracy seems unavoidable, if it's not that then total corporate control.

>since the system is rigged from the get-go
*smiles down at you*

Attached: ted_kaczynski_harvard_g-594372140.jpg (1200x675, 135K)

You're looking at their society like a white person. What we call "corruption" is normal practice for them. Their ancient civilizations which they are taught to cherish via stories and mythology are filled with rulers who upon their death were buried with hundreds of living human sacrifices. They aren't a "democratic" people in any meaningful sense, and it may just be the best thing for them to have what we would consider authoritarian rulership, but who is actually interested in the long term preservation of China (rather than some democratically elected leader who pilfers as much as he can for the 4-8 years he is in power before returning to private enterprise with his spoils). On top of that, when they do find what they consider corruption (embezzlement of state corporate funds etc) they just send the fucking military police to kill the guy for his crimes against the Chinese people and replace him with another person before the cleaning staff can get rid of the blood. Analyzing the Chinese people as if they are white and belong to white society is a mistake. What works for them and what works for white people may not be the same.

It's not about a specific system, it is a given across all systems that a state/ruling class which manages to escape societal controls will run amok. China has always had a tendency towards seperatism and this depends on definitions but the founding date of the modern Chinese state is somewhere in the 1970s or even later. I don't think it will last a hundred years, the previous orthodox communist system exhausted itself after only 30 or so. The whole thing is very unstable.

he is a manlet lol

Has the Chinese ruling class really escaped social controls? What social controls have they escaped, and are there not fairly severe punishments for those who deviate from loyalty to China? That's the whole reason so many wealthy Chinese end up in the US and Canada is explicitly because they can hide their ill gotten wealth here whereas back home they'd be killed for syphoning so much off of the Chinese people.

Was your post meant for someone else?
t. confused

I'm not saying that this has happened already, I'm not very involved with Chinese politics. What I'm postulating is that such a development is unavoidable and rapid outside of democratic controls. I'm not specifically talking about democracy but just any reliant way accross time to force people into social behaviour. I mean the Chinese are brilliant, right? High IQ ancient and beautiful culture, but they always had a problem with concentrated power. They fall victim to their success so to speak. The west surpassed China because it was so hard to tame. There were no power centers comparable to the Emperor, if you were mistreated you just moved 10 miles over, under the jurisdiction of a different ruler - which is an ideal environment for the development of justice. If you overcome these sorts of underlying realities you need to develop other mechanisms to ensure the stability of a mutually beneficial system in which the individual can take his place or cooperation will disintegrate, which I would call decivilization.

Would you call having grown from a primarily agrarian society with very little running water and transportation infrastructure to the largest economy in the world in less than 50 years a problem with concentrated power? Why do you have such a hard time accepting that different people have different modes of social organization and different political tendencies? Is it so unthinkable that there are people who actually are happier with distinct and centrally enforced societal norms and standards? Just because they are more explicit about the top-down orientation of their political/social infrastructure than the west doesn't mean it is in some way destined to fail any more seriously than the west is. I can guarantee you that if China continues unaltered, they are going to last a significantly longer period of time than the west who continuously imports non-western people to buy things as a mechanism to prop up its insanely fraudulent consumerist economy.

The system rewards greed, sociopathic greedy people.

Well that’s something to work on, isn’t it?

I don't think you undertand my take. Their system has only momentarily achieved stability after hundreds of years of chaos which resulted in mass death/murder and economic stagnation. They're now 40 years or so out of that and I don't think it will last. The underlying problem is centralization, they achieved temporary stability through centralization. It is as if they had the temporary fortune of a reasonable ruler while creating the infrastructre for the impossibility of a reasonable ruler in the future. Something like that. I'm totally fine and understand the cultural and biological necessity of different system, but that doesn't change the fact the fundamental truths exist in all human systems in particular as they relate to biological human imperatives.

All systems will. You can continue to live in your fantasy land and believe that there will be some equalization, but there will always be structural hierarchy with leaders enforcers and followers.

There's plenty of problems with China, and they will certainly have some that result from the particulars of their centralized system as it interacts with a changing world order around them. The only way to assess it is not on some fundamental/universal level, because all systems eventually come to an end, but against the other contemporary systems competing for similar space. Their authoritarian "state-capitalism" or "market-communism"(rough translation of what they actually call their system) is not a perfect system and will eventually come to an end, but it seems a much better option than basically anything else in the world right now. Democracy will not save them because democracy is just a team sport and China is 93% southern Han Chinese. A "democratic" China will be fundamentally no different than the authoritarian China they have today.

All systems that do this will.
Look, I prescribe democracy in the workplace and a non accumulative currency. The resulting “fantasy land” would be far far better than this system.
Anarchism is about challenging all unjustifiable hierarchies. Only the dumbest or newest advocate of “anarchy” thinks it’s about a world completely untethered. Mothers will set bedtimes, I like to tell them

As a woman you know nothing of the workplace nor political order, and quite frankly you will have to bear none of the consequences of people taking your input seriously. That will fall on men's shoulders. To the extent you do understand actually working for something in a serious fashion it is in a pale and fruitless emulation of men. Your views are non-serious and to the extent men treat your views as worth taking seriously it will be a great detriment to the entirety of society.

I don't fundamentally disagree but a point to make is that when looking at America for example you're looking at, in terms of government, an ancient system. Rot sets in over time and it has been marvelously stable. There's no chance in hell that China will achieve similar stablity and the reason is to be found in their lack of ability to control the central organs even when lacking the severe problems of multiculturalism. America has only exprerienced fundamental degeneration in the last say 50 years and it will be able to perpetuate itself for quite some time. Time runs quicker now and we can't expect another thousand year Reich but the U.S. (and Britain) have demonstrated the stability of the liberal state even on an imperial scale.

As a working class woman who has studied this subject for many years, I can say with confidence that I do know something of what I speak of

If people started to share and earn vouchers for their time worked, and started businesses where they collectively owned and operated them, these people would be prepared for this ever declining economy. It’s essentially preppers but on a community scale.

Why are you so scared for the safety of your rich fags?

I don't think that the American system is as stable as you think it is. I'm not expecting some sort of sky is falling collapse, but all it takes for catabolic collapse to occur is that it costs more than one gallon of gas to extract one gallon of gasolines worth of energy and things are going to get very bad very quickly, especially in urban areas. The worst possible situation is one in which somehow this decline is prolonged long enough to cause more permanent ecological damage which renders human life actually irrecoverable rather than just a temporary but larger scale societal/population collapse a la Rome or Late Bronze Age.
It's sort of an odd situation in the west in which the only way to really solve the issues that plague the west is to solve problems that the west has effectively very little direct control over. The closest that the west could realistically come is to effectively pull out of Africa/Asia in a more serious fashion, but western people fundamentally will not accept the massive population decline in Africa/South Asia that is needed to actually stabilize the world ecologically, let alone salvage the Western civilizational paradigm. The only way out of this is to become something fundamentally "non-western" in a way that I just don't see within the capacity of the domesticated white people that make up the shrinking majorities in their homelands. There needs to be a willingness to fire into a crowd and become monsters in a way that I just don't see within the ability of westerners the way it has been in Africa/South America/Asia.

pretty gay post user

I don't think that our problems are fundamentally ecological. We'll invent technologies that make all of this irrelevant. Ignoring AI just in terms of genetic manipulation we will be able to solve issues like overpopulation. And there's time to do this as capitalism will give us more and more efficient ways to allocate the resources we have. I mean the discussion itself was a bit unnecessary as I don't believe that much of what we talked about will be relevant in a few decades, I was just a bit autistic I suppose.

I'm not rich by any means. I drive a 30 year old car, have less than a years worth of liquid, and make $3 an hour above minimum wage in my state. It has been being poor that has made me recognize how little capacity for self governance most of the working class have. My lack of debt and fairly meager savings relative to my expenses have made me comparably rich when compared against the vast majority of my income bracket, and people often assume me much wealthier than I really am. This is not to say that the wealthy do not collude to centralize/concentrate power at the expense of the workers because they certainly do, but it is foolishness to think that the workers are capable of self governance to any serious capacity. Perhaps with slightly better management of resources we can make a smaller proportion live in squalor, but there will always be a pyramid structure to civilization as we know it with the vast majority of the bottom tier fundamentally incapable of self sustenance (including myself to a large degree because I could certainly not thrive to the same extent I have without the significant centralization of food/water/etc that this mixed market for all its faults had brought us). It is one thing to pressure powers to a more responsible role in society, it is another to think that there can be civilization and a complex society (in the sense of having non-aggrarian professionals) without significant centralization of resources which directly produces concentration of wealth/power to those who manage that centralization. Your problem isn't political, it's anthropological.

Sorry friend. There are many things women are useful for (and some that they are even better for) but politics is fundamentally not one of them for they have no full concept of responsibility for their actions, especially in the age of "sexual liberation" which has effectively removed the last remnants of responsibility women had to have for themselves.

>Well that’s something to work on, isn’t it?
I wasn't attending exclusive bar mitzvahs and other slow-building networking events since I was little.

>The problem isn't ecological

I'm sorry guy, you just don't know what you're talking about. While "climate change" in terms that it is talked about in the popular media is largely garbage, the idea that we can innovate ourselves out of the consequences of the human population more than tripling in less than 100 years (and primarily in areas with next to no enforcement of environmental standards) is naive at best. This may be true in relatively clean western countries if we are to immediately close down immigration from Africa/Asia, but it will not occur while we have effectively never ending population increases from the third world in order to buy more plastic garbage, movie tickets, and increasingly unsustainable food products. To the extent that direct genetic engineering will assist in food production (as opposed to indirect via artificial selection eg agriculture), it will only serve to continue the massive pollution and degradation of the remaining arable land in the West. The US and Western Europe rose to having more protected forest conservation land than any time in the 1800s, and the population expanses in Europe have required the resumption of significant deforestation in countries like Germany and France in a capacity that we have not seen since the first industrial revolution. It doesn't take an apocalyptic sky is falling scenario to make a system ecologically unable to sustain itself. All it takes is more energy output to harvest energy than the yield we get out kilojoule per kilojoule. The second we reach a situation where it takes more than one gallon of gas to produce one gallon of gas, we have effectively entered a situation in which the only long term option going forward is gradual collapse or significant voluntary reduction in social complexity/consumption in a way that most modern western people are unwilling to accept (and honestly cannot directly conceive in a meaningful sense).

Population increases are expected to come to a halt at 9 billion and artificial intelligence should be here within a hundred years meaning extincion or a jump in technology to the end of what's possible. Genetic manipulation will allow us to increase IQ levels propably above anything that could occur naturally. So these will not be the same Africans then, it's going to be a population of athletic nobel prize winners so to speak and that's assuming that there is such a thing as scarcity after AI.

I tell you there's a small group of people controlling the world and you call me a communist.
I tell you who it is and you call me a fascist

Spoken like a true high school beta

It’s rather odd that you would defend the new sovereigns so fiercely, even when you say
>is foolishness to think that the workers are capable of self governance to any serious capacity.
It is foolishness to believe people are incapable of governing themselves. They do it all the time. The responsibility does them good even.
>there will always be a pyramid structure
Look at you, making up excuses left and right. *remove* the pyramid structures (Ha. Aluminati) the civilization that knows they’re a rotten system will abstain from using it.
Take the training wheels off and we balance as we ride right along

Hm.

Butterfly, morally speaking what you say might be true, but materially speaking someone must always have more than someone else. It’s the nature of life and the process of exchange leads certain members to have a greater proportional sway of the market than others.

:3

Seriously seek help man.

I'm sorry but you're not being honest here. How many truly poor people have you met and known well? I grew up in a post industrial area that has been devastated by the manufacturing collapse following NAFTA and has continued to struggle as every attempt to increase wages and collectively bargain is met with near unlimited immigration of Aztec peasants willing to undercut the already stagnating wages of the working poor. The working poor need capable advocates, not to bear the burden of their suffering as if they are responsible for the massive crater woke capital has left in the labor economy. I'm not against labor organization via unions and guilds and cooperation of the working poor to advocate for a better quality of life, and have worked for multiple unions. With that being said, the number of working poor I've met who were truly capable of self-governance was staggeringly low. The unions are full of guys who go work the lines or lay pavement just to drink and drug their paycheck away as soon as they get it, and I'm sorry but the idea that the labor class is by and large capable of self management is foolish beyond belief. All that a turning over of the reigns of power to the working poor will do, is sift out the vast majority of people who aren't capable of maintenance of such a thing creating a new managerial class out of the outliers of the existing working poor.

Again, you need a better understanding of human nature. I'd suggest spending a few years living among the impoverished workers of post-industrial America. They aren't bad people and their concerns should be taken seriously, but they aren't going to be capable of solving their problems in any meaningful sense.

I couldn't think of a single thing more horrifying than someone with the violent proclivities of Africans with a nobel prize capable IQ. We can only hope you don't actually get what you are asking for, because it will truly be a bloodier slaughter than you can imagine.

> I have known people in some of the worst conditions imaginable, atomized by capital and propaganda, driven to the threshold of their sanity by the ludicrous economic pressures laid upon them, so I know everything that humans are capable of regardless of material conditions!

you're a dumbass and an unfunny nauseating creep.

MUH NEOLIBERALISM ABLOO BLOO BLOOO WAAAHHHH MOMMMYYY PLS STOP THE MEANIE TORIES KEEP SAYING THE EU IS A BIG BULLY PLES AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Attached: 268x0w.png (268x402, 224K)

I’m being completely honest. People can be easily taught to bare the burden of self reliance. What is this bitching about poor people undercutting wages? The employers set the wages. That’s capitalism’s fault.
We need stronger stuff than simple unionism, we need a world of co-ops and syndicates. Democracy in the workplace would lead to communities that looked after their own governance. If some don’t have a head for it, they’ll keep out of it.
I do tend to describe the generation after that implements these reforms, so maybe you misunderstood me, or actual “human nature”

Recommend this book in another thread. It’s simple enough

Attached: 0A8A1D3E-07F1-4F3D-8212-700A70878663.jpg (445x600, 54K)

Stalin's centralization worked and Lenin thought the NEP was a retreat from his intended policy. People who defend it are brainlets. The USSR was fine until it decentralized during the thaw under Khrushchev and it only got worse as time progressed, autonomy increased, and corruption followed. Couldn't risk that with Uncle Joe, he'd have thrown and your family into a camp for 15 years.

Another great irony is despite being the most centralized under Stalin, it had the most incentive built into the economy related to work effort. Meaning, people would actually get something for working harder. He also did not have GUM style party perks. Stalin had the best economy in the history of the USSR.

The people who are interested are already involved they’re business owners, union reps, mp, councillors, party members, etc. I think you grossly over estimate how many people actually care about their job and the direction of the company, most just want the money and long term stability. People who want more and are willing to take on the responsibility usually start a small business of their own. The great thing about our current system is that it’s very easy to setup a business with your particularly philosophical approach.

So you’re apathetic because you think you have socialism already and it doesn’t work bla bla bla bla. Oh wait
>The great thing about our current system is that
...it ropes people in. That feature of capitalism isn’t good, it’s deceiving. It’s called selling out.
>Aztec peasants
Fucking blancos

They have gone thousands of years with this and are doing ok (except being so militarily incompetent they were ruled by foreigners half of their history) . But yes, imminent collapse. Any day now.

This is the terminal stage of class cuckoldry. The moment of the master slave dialectic where the slave trembles at the thought of recognition or compensation for his services.

You read like your lungs collapse when you spend too much time outside of your parents gated neighborhood.

must be first time I'm in agreement with this cunt

Because I'm not middle/upper middle class with tons of connections

ever heard of Dengism?

Lmao. The /pol/ influx has really turned this board into a fucking joke, if such a retard post goes largely unpunished.

>/pol/ tards are lower class subhuman incel losers with shit jobs and an appreciation for neoliberalist overlords
It's like poetry

And you believe you know them to be capable of better because of what exactly? What evidence do you have that there is this universal capacity for self governance/reliance? How would you go about supporting such a belief if actually looking at the way the working poor live and go about their attempts at problem solving isn't an effective enough refutation? Your optimism about the capability of the proletariat is a lot more bourgeois than you think it is.

Go ahead then, get on with it. You have such a world shattering response to my belief that women generally are not serious political actors/thinkers and to the extent they are it is mostly in emulation of men? Go for it, blow my brainlet /pol/tard mind! Show me with your enlightened ways that women are actually worth taking seriously politically, find me effective female political leaders/thinkers and evidence that women in general are interested in the actual work and responsibilities of seriously tackling the problems of society beyond trying to peddle it off to men to seriously tackle the issue. I'm willing to believe I'm wrong, but I've yet to really see much reason to think otherwise.

Why do you think that a hierarchical system automatically implies extortion you dumb inbred nigger?
Are you incapable of imagining a hierarchy where the leaders are tied to the welfare of their subjects? One could easily enforce this by setting up certain paradigms and overriding the current system of self perpetuating greed and suffering called late capitalism. You do realise that people in the 60s had it better, you know, back when the US "was great"?
Coincidentally society was more equal with the wages being far more equal as well. It's not like that matters to you though right? The trickle down effect works for you at least, wagie.

There's absolutely no point you wageslaving bitter incel. You hate women and don't even "allow"(as if that mattered) them to be intelligent and virtuous because of your close minded predispositions. Even if I listed a 100 women who were great political thinkers and worked much harder than you could possibly imagine in your capitalist cuckshed, you'd dismiss it by saying "They don't count."
So stop pretending you're open for an arguement you little incel bitch.

It's class cuckoldry to recognize that the vast majority of people are not cut out for leadership and need effectively led institutions to belong to and guide them through their lives? I'm not a big fan of neoliberal global capitalism nor the Jews who pull the strings at most of the major financial, technology, and media firms, but I'm also not arrogant enough to think that the morons who work at the mall actually have any future beyond what their leaders make for them. There is no future in which Blacks or Latinos (and even a large proportion of lower IQ whites) will ever be capable of self-governance in any serious way, and quite frankly most of even the working class white population aren't interested in that sort of thing. There's going to be a small proportion of the working poor who are capable of self-governance and a good system should allow them to be effective advocates of their people whether it be through some kind of syndaclism or through being a union rep/leader in a mixed market capitalist system. The rest are not bad people for not being up to the job, but you're a fool to think they are actually ever going to be effective at managing their own lives and production in any serious way.

Your blatant and self righteous display of ignorance and racism just makes everything you say so highly comical, it actually made me laugh.
>it's da joos but the niggers and the womyn and roasties aren't capable of leading anything so I just go with da joos because they pay me 13 bucks per hour xD
>not a fan though btw >:(

Attached: 1549038516989.png (270x344, 52K)

I'm not an incel. I have a wife and two children. I don't hate women, I'm just not interested in being dishonest about who they are and the way they behave. I have come to the beliefs I have after seeing so many of my female peers be completely miserable chasing career and political ambitions that they actually genuinely didn't hold and were projected onto them by the media/educational/extra governmental institutions they were taught to be fighting for them. I'm not asking you to name me 100 female political thinkers/leaders. I'm telling you that the women that are fundamentally do not understand the consequences of implementing their beliefs because women aren't actually really political actors by and large. There are some exceptional people sure, but most women that are political today, are political in the sense that they seek to enforce the progressive moral paradigm that has been pushed on them by the institutions they were taught to place authority into. They don't deeply question their moral intuitions or the consequences of their actions, because quite frankly they don't suffer the consequences of when they make poor choices, men do. Male police officers, soldiers, and dissidents are the ones left to pick up the pieces when their decisions don't work out. This can be seen very easily by how few women support the idea of women being forced into the selective service and being drafted into the military, despite fighting tooth and nail to let women into those military positions in the first place. Women want the fun parts of "rights" but none of the actual responsibilities of living in a society, and quite frankly should more or less be completely disregarded when it comes to their political beliefs.

Just curious, do you live in a black majority area? If not, why not?

I’m not going to lie: your wife is very likely far, far different than Butterfly. Butterfly is a supreme breed of woman, she is literally submissive towards me but unbelievably apt and intelligent.

Your wife is most likely some form of feminist who goes out with her friends every night blah blah blah, I’ve had ex gfs like that.

Butterfly would be okay with sucking my dick all night while I read to her. Or she would be okay reading to me and me asking her about the things she is reading. No difference. Your woman is not awesome like she is, sorry. :3

You think I’m projecting? Has she ever mentioned feminism once? Has she ever denied she bought a collar for me? Haha, sure I did a good job but I also hit a jackpot. And the best part is: she definitely flirts with me but it’s JUST me. She isn’t going to do it with anyone else :3

Based butterfly repellent
Underrated insight
Close, but it's moreso tribalism stratified across class

The mods deleted her post, incel. She would have left it up.

:3

>Am I capable of imagining a hierarchy where the leadership is tied to the welfare of the people?

Yes, and that is pretty much only going to happen in racially homogeneous societies with strong internally affirming centralized mythology that the people believe in and fight for. The US was "great" in the 50s for two primary reasons, firstly it was a period of unbridled economic prosperity following the end of World War 2 in which America was more or less the only majorly industrialized country that hadn't been blown to shit. Secondly it was still ~90% White and more or less had a homogeneous cultural mythology and morality. This is not the case today, and any efforts at real organization for the labor class have a really serious hurdle of how little people of different racial backgrounds actually want to live and cooperate with each other on any sort of large scale. To the extent it works in bourgeois neighborhoods it is precisely because the non-whites who move there effectively assimilate into bourgeois swpl white culture.

>Coincidentally wages were better etc.

Yes, and I would argue that in order to get better wages there needs to be both a ceasing of immigration (both "low skilled" and "high skilled") which has been used as a means to suppress wages by reducing the ability of workers to collectively bargain for better working conditions via labor scarcity. Now that illegals (and third world visa holders) of all kinds are an effectively unlimited supply of scabs, there is no way to actually keep wages high relative to productivity. I'd even be interested in providing better social services like largely universal healthcare with optional suplimental private insurance for those who want to pay for it if we shut the flood gates and stopped being a garbage dump for the "wretched refuse" from all over the world and started actually taking seriously the condition of our people.

But you and all the other men that are "political" are completely reasonable people right? I mean the Trump voter is the archetype of the "thinking man". You're the only one with "common sense" right? Listen here: you're a dumbass. All of your arguements rely on hearsay and none of them hold any quantifiable measure of correctness, because they're all entirely based on your idea of the world and women. You're not a brainlet /pol/tard, at least you got that right. Your impressions don't fucking matter. Listen buddy, if feminism was explainable away by some frustrated fag like you, it would be gone by now, but guess what, it's not.

There's women that whore themselves out on Instagram and claim to be feminists, does that mean feminism is about Instagram sluts? You think that women don't want to be drafted, give me some certifiable data on that claim for one and if you're done with that, explain to me how you came up with the claim that "they" - as if women were a singular organism - were fighting tooth and nail to get into the army or the police, when in fact the armed forces and other branches of the executive have relied on the work of countless women who did their part, which you will then of course disregard because "they didn't even get shot lol".
By the way: Women were historically seen as an indispensable source of life in the Western cultures and therefore didn't go to war in a combatant role, if that clears up some of your questions.
The armed forces need every personell they can get their hands on, that's the reason for women being in the armed forces, armies all across the western world have recruitment problems and always open up new sources of personell influx when they can.
But why am I even arguing here, you go mate, teach your offspring that daddy is a proud genetic loser (oh, that's right, you think you're one of the potential "proletariat leaders" as I saw from your other post) and tell em to hate Jews, Niggers and Women and they will grow up to be just as or even worse off than you. You're a fucking cuck.

Nah, I got incredibly lucky. She was from two towns over from me, and we were both virgins when we met (I was 17 and she was 15). We've been together since and she isn't at all interested in feminism (largely because she's seen how miserable so many of her friends who did pursue that sort of thing turned out) though she's honest enough to admit that she actually isn't really interested in politics, which is generally the case for women. To the extent that many younger women are political (especially on University campuses) it is largely a mechanism to determine and enforce status, not actually a consequence of any seriously held beliefs. This is made very apparent if you actually try and talk to them about their beliefs in a respectful way, because the loudest voices shouting at the protest often cannot even articulate what they believe in a calm and quiet setting.

this desu. I'm considering leaving this board; do you know any forums/chans that might be closer to old Yea Forums?

Yea Forums is pretty much dead, intellectual discourse has gotten so rare it might as well not exist at all.
People fling their biased self proclaimed genius ideologies at every thread and every poster nowadays. Just look at this guy here:Whose entire point of reference when it comes to (not just) women is his wife's stupidity and the supposed insights he has made over the years.
But it guess it's good enough for managing "discussions" on incelchan where seemingly half of the posters are nowadays inclined to "upvote" everything that they think is "counter culture".

Reading is a better alternative. People go online for attention and controversy is an easy way to garner that. Just like OP who cba to do anything, well he's contributing in a very real way to his undoing just by making this thread here. And the same with the /pol/ poster. Nothing said online against the system carries any conviction. All of this is just to serve a need for attention. Here is your you.

Hey man there’s nothing wrong with that :3 he is just happy to be alive.

You seem to be miserable or looking for excuses to be miserable

I don't think most men are politically capable thinkers, and I think democracy is incredibly burdensome on average proletariat because it places this moral weight on them to be political in a way they are capable. I would say actually very few men are capable of serious political thinking, but that the few men who are very seriously put number the even fewer women who are. The major difference is that there are near endless organizations with government funding and media/educational promotion seeking to make women more politically ambitious (to very little success in most cases) and telling every woman their voice counts, where as very few men are ever told they have something of value to contribute (both because most actually don't and the semi-recent trend of blaming heterosexual white males for all the ills in the world, with only slight hyperbole there). Most men and women have very little of value to contribute to an effective political system. It just so happens that the proportion of men who have something to contribute is significantly larger than the proportion of women who do.

As far as the draft thing is concerned, Rasmussen did a fairly large survey about this. Of 20,000 "likely voters" (meaning both registered to vote and confirming via survey they had intentions to vote) only 38% of women surveyed supported women needing to register for the selective service in order to receive government services (the same way all male citizens over 18 need to). Unfortunately Rasmussen keeps their articles behind a paywall like seemingly every news/political source now but I'll link it anyways. m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2016/most_women_oppose_having_to_register_for_the_draft

While I'm not actually really interested in arguing about source methodology, of the few polls I cursorily looked over in the last few minutes, the only one with a majority of women favoring the military draft was conducted by Sachs media group showing 61% of women supporting drafting women out of a sample size of 1000 registered voters (with only 120 of them being women), and a significant polling bias towards both urbanite areas where people actually generally don't understand what constitutes military service, and politically democrat leaning regions. That was basically the only exception I could find with most sources, whether it be direct polling like Gallup, or media surveys as was done in WaPo and The Hill showing a fairly large majority of women against drafting women, especially for combat positions.

All problems are ecological. Anyone who disagree with this universal is unbearably retarded and should be aborted in favor of a smarter person for that spot.

Neoliberalism was useful to establish the mycelium of the civilization. Now, it's the time to go back to a more conservative lifestyle while keeping the tech innovations.

Just curious there friend. What sourcing do you use to inform your opinions? If experience does not count, do you keep a list of news articles and peer review journals with you at all times to justify your positions? I don't think you actually do, because nobody does. I'm just being a tad more honest about it, and in fact I'd say generally speaking this tendency towards autistically calling for sources as if academic journals and media organizations are actually consistent and objective sources of information is fairly ridiculous. I know it's hard for you to actually critically think in some capacity (as opposed to just taking the views of others you deem effective authority figures and copy-pasting them into your progressive bugman scrapbook) but if you can't effectively argue the merits of the position you're taking in an informal fashion where there isn't serious scholarship required, I doubt you're actually in much of a position to produce rigorous scholarship where sourcing is actually required.

Is it that hard to ignore formulaic pol noise?

>If I just close my eyes, maybe my fantasies of equality and progress can play out in my mind where they really matter

Too bad people are greedy and don't know when to stop.

Attached: 1549322355547.png (1001x823, 806K)

>I claim to care but really I just want to kill time online meanwhile sister marianne at our lady is handing out sandwiches to immigrant workers or homeless people and noone knows her political opinions online.

>if i pester them loudly enough they can't tune me out for being a boring one note hack
wrong. my WPM is like 800 dude

Sister Marianne's political opinions don't matter, and the burden of needing to have "political opinions" in any serious sense is actually quite a lot for most normal people. This is one of the main reasons any time any sort of scandal that attracts national media coverage happens in small town America the main reaction from people is to hide until they go away. Most people instinctively understand that politics is fundamentally playing with fire, and that while they may have some vague sense of what they want the world to look like they're certainly not in a position to argue them on a serious platform and face the scrutiny of the world (especially not when the platforms themselves are directly hostile to the views of most small town Americans, let alone their meager viewership).

>Even if I listed a 100 women who were great political thinkers
The only problem with Rosa Luxemburg is that her death wasn’t painful enough.

I'm certainly boring, which is why in a few minutes of posting over the course of the last couple days I've gotten more responses than anyone else in this thread (and basically no one actually arguing against anything I've said besides either the point and stutter routine or the "Trump voters are incels/rural retards" bit even though I'm much more "Make America White Again" than "Make America Great Again").

The will of the service economy is the trve counter culture. You tell ‘em, my empathetic friend.

Your positing far too much here
Sister Marianne could be a catholic worker or a vehement pro lifer, but ultimately her acts of kindness do far more than any political posturing online. The racist movement online is fulfilling a need for attention just like the woke movement. They are both simulacra.

And to be sure I am NOT saying you can't no nuffin nor am I proposing people engage moreso in politics, in fact I am suggesting apolitical acts of altruism, and normalizing selflessness. But here I am, silly me, wanting to waste time and talk about books and get attention for my special little self just like who thinks he isn't boring because of all his upvotes.

Experience does count in discourse it's simply that you lack a lot of experience, for one, not being a /pol/ "socialised" retard. You also lack the experience of being open minded toward the actual hardships of other people and you seem to think that women, black people, low IQ whites and generally speaking everyone that isn't a "woke" and redpilled idiot like yourself doesn't have any idea what life is like. Your condescending manners compliment your superiority complex perfectly, I have to admit.

So is this book good or nah

>baiting people is hard when you're a white supremacist whose ironically enough the absolute opposite of supreme

It's important to remember that neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism are essentially the same. Just neo-conservatives are jews

I became a racist when the working class white town that I was from became increasingly disintegrated as more blacks and Latinos moved in. Going to a highschool with a 45% black student base gave me plenty of reason to not particularly want to associate with black people as a whole. I don't consider myself "superior" in any objective fashion, but I'm not interested in any hand-waving assertions that we are fundamentally the same in our political ambitions and general modes of operation.

The funniest part about the discourse you engage in is that you're not making a better world for blacks/Latinos etc and women with your posturing and holding them to standards/roles that they neither see themselves in, nor are generally speaking interested in/capable of filling. I'm not pretending to be some direct advocate for black people, but I'm not also not interested in pretending that your line of thinking is doing them any favors by projecting white ideas of societal norms and ideals onto them as ideal political/social structures. Sure, Black Americans have plenty of struggles that I directly do not know, and they in turn have very little insight into what it is like to actually live in a country which structures/communities which were built over many generations by my ancestry are effectively destroyed to accommodate blacks who don't even wish to participate in them in any significant numbers anyways. I don't think Black Americans have it as "easy" as White Americans in a certain sense, but I think they have it significantly easier than any other significant population of Black people on Earth have ever had it and I have no illusions that things will be easier on Blacks when larger numbers of them are in control of American institutions and those institutions have to genuinely deal with the consequences of that.

Thinking Deng was like Thatcher and Reagan is typical dumb, gay and lame Western analysis that makes know sense if you even have an entry level knowledge of modern Chinese history

Sick burn bro. You called me a name that everyone else from your milieu also calls me. You certainly are a unique individual with well formed ideas that you actually contributed to and totally not just a drone repetitively mouthing the views that the status quo has fed to you.

Neoconservatism is neoliberalism + cruise missiles.

You're a white supremacist, so what, I don't care, but don't expect people to take your views on any single matter seriously, your arguments as I said before, are laughable and entirely tainted by your shit colored glasses. You think you're the big victim of globalisation and the immigrants when in fact your political and economic system pushed them onto you(while you begged for more)
So please do us all a favour and take your bullshit to /pol/ nobody will give you any upvotes there though, that's for sure, that's exactly the reason you come here, you wageslaving cuckold. Good thing you managed to pump some white trash kids into your dumbass wife, they'll love the indoctrination that's for sure ;)

I'd argue they're present in both. Obama wasn't exactly a pacifist. Only huge difference is the blanket commitment to Israel expected of Neo-Conservatives. Hardly surprising when you look at who wrote the PNAC.

It's the time for neoecocon movement. There is no alternative.

I find the thought that no one is in control way scarier. Maybe telling ourselves that it's Google, Apple, Russia or our Government is the teddy bear we clutch in the dark hours, enabling us to sleep.

Attached: loomis-dean.william-burroughs-and-naked-lunch-at-beat-hotel.jpg (1024x768, 268K)

Where the fuck did you get that I want a better world for niggers or spics or even women? I simply want a better world for all of us while you are at the bottom of the food chain and still try to kick the others down. You're a crab in the bucket, you know you're a loser but you want others to suffer with you and even more so.
Go make America white again, be the martyr that you want to see in the world, so your kids can be free again from the shakles of the evil immigrants.

Of course there are people in control. If no one was in control The West would've spiralled into anarchic chaos in 2008.

I'm sure you have quite a lot of experience with living around blacks and Latinos. You sound like someone who definitely understands the virtues they bring to American society.

As far as the whole globalism/immigration bit goes, you can hold your nose and pretend that these views are "laughable" while never actually confronting them in a serious fashion, but things will continue to disintegrate for the working class as this process continues. I don't think "White people" in any meaningful sense voted for the 1965 Hart-Celler Act, and the people who pushed the bill on the news literally promoted it as something that would not radically change the demography of America so that the general public wouldn't be upset by it. While you could say that global capitalist ventures into the third world brought about these conditions (via the whole "rule the world invite the world" concept) but to the extent that is true it occurred via Western imperialism reducing the infant mortality rate in these areas allowing their populations to grow to a point where there local economic infrastructure couldn't sustain them. The only notable exceptions I can think of are India and the Middle East, and as far as the chaos in the middle east is concerned it's fairly easy to find the connection to promotion of the greater Israel project (as laid out in the Neo-con Project for A New American Century) rather than the consequences of America pursuing their economic interests as it is often portrayed. The "refugee crisis" coming out of Africa and South Asia wasn't caused by white people meddling in the otherwise functional societies, it was caused by White people attempting to improve the quality of life and skyrocketing their population growth in an unsustainable fashion.

Literally judging a book by its cover.

My enemies aren't immigrants, my enemies are bourgeois faggots like you. Immigrants and minorities are pawns that have been played against my people. I don't want to associate with blacks and latinos generally speaking, but I don't see them as some enemy to fight but rather as a weapon to be used against me.

not him
>projecting

You’ve internalized the morality of the left to some extent I’m your defense of imperialism. By trying to argue from some sort of humanitarian perspective, they will always be able to dominate you.

The real answer is that we should care for them as the same when they show up here as we did for when they were in their own lands.

Look mate, the problems are far more complex than your "niggers and spics" explanation. I know it's appealing to escape into these extremely simple and literal black and white modes of thinking, but this binary "good people bad people" idea doesn't get you far.
I believe you that the people living around you suck fucking ass, I don't doubt that, but the solution to the problem that you're facing isn't going to be the one you'd like, it's never going to be. We(the western hegemonial global powers) abused and extorted, and by the way still do, the poorer less civilized people's everywhere around our globe, we also do this with earth itself. The system that we have built for ourselves festers on everyone and is built by greedy, never satiable power and by extension money driven people (yes, they're not just Jewish but for the most part ethnic descendants of indo European speaking peoples).
You can't build the wealth of a Nation on the back of the global poor, forcing them into death and suffering just because you want to have more luxury goods and higher standard of living, and then expect the situation to remain stable.
I know you're a lost cause at this point, but you have the capacity to introspect further than you do and you're not an idiot by any means, but be honest and start to see things through more than your immediate lense. Yes, your situation sucks, but you're not the only one that suffers because of our capitalist system. We have been winners for the longest time and your ancestors never had to face the challenges that they sowed. It is you who is reaping now and it's obvious why you don't like it.

>generic wignat posting to milk a couple you's from newfags
that's not an accomplishment, you're BORING. get new material.

I'm not projecting. The dude literally said he earns barely more than what is considered minimum wage. By all accounts he is almost the equivalent of a burger flipper at McD and he certainly isn't one the upside swing of the pendulum.

I'll get new material when the material conditions that brought about people like me change, sound fair?

You’ll learn white a lot. Try his YouTube talks for a sampling

Anarchism isn’t chaos. If control weren’t in the hands of greedy sociopaths, we would not be seeing all this looting and murdering, chaos.
If the world were decentralized we’d maybe get into a few fist fights, but go back to our corners and live in relative peace

Quite a lot*

Your fathers used to be part of the bourgeoise and now they bequeathed to you the carcasses of their feast.
Blame your ancestors, don't blame me just for having been born in a better place and to better parents. Maybe if your potato nigger great grandparents would have stayed in Ireland, you'd not be surrounded by niggers and Latinos now. Your thinking is essentially the same as a the one of some niggers in the US "Whitey ruined my country and made muh granny a slave, I hate him!"

Lol, they will never change with your bootlicker attitude and your hatred for your neighbourhood nigs.
It'll only get worse for people like you, soon you'll be off even worse and then you'll wish there was some kind of hardliner like good ol Hitler to bail your ass out of poverty.

You're correct. I don't make a large hourly wage at the moment. I gave up on my higher paying full time trade career to take up a lower paying service industry career while I go back to school so I can provide a better life for my wife and children. People go back to college in their late 20s early 30s all the time, and generally speaking the kinds of jobs that one can work while also being a full-time student are not particularly lucrative unless you have better connections to the bourgeois labor than me. It's not an ideal situation, sure. When I went into a trade out of high school instead of college I didn't exactly expect that my trade career would compromise my ability to provide the kind of life I want to my wife and children so I am taking the steps I can to fix the situation while my children are still young enough to not know any better.

The West will never spiral into anarchic chaos during our lifetime, but everything around it already does.

you're a fungible drone spewing a 100% predictable script. we've heard it all before a thousand times dude, where do you think you are?

I'm licking the boots by fighting against the moral paradigm of the status quo how exactly? What exactly are you doing that is so dissident?

Sure, I acknowledge there will always be some sort of hierarchy based on generalized capacity to thrive, and it is unlikely that I will end up on the absolute top of that hierarchy no matter what kind of ideology you drape over this anthropological problem. Where exactly is my explicit support of the interests of people like me directly as white people (ironically something to which I could very well be ousted from polite society for despite people like you insisting that "White supremacy" is a tool of the status quo) a thing that could be connected to "boot licking". Is recognition that top-down enforcement of societal norms and standards are a feature of literally every society that has ever existed (including ones often described as "heterarchy" like Jeanne Jeno in Africa where thieves and criminals were regularly publicly executed by vassals of various tribal elders) and will more than likely continue into the future, something that is fundamentally "boot licking" to you?

This is a very wrong reading of history. I don't like the term "neoliberalism" but if it is to be used it really emerges from strategic thinking at the RAND corporation in the late 1940s which allowed a set theoretic reformulation of liberalism which really has little to do with the calculus of neoclassical economics. With cybernetics, game theory and all that you get the logic for the transformation of, to use Marxist terminology, the entire base of global society.

deterritorialinvestigations.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/the-sage-speaks-of-what-he-sees-war-games-and-the-new-spirit-of-capitalism/

You don't seem to understand terms. "Neoliberalism" is an economic policy of deregulation and marketization. "Neoconservatism" is support for an aggressive pro-American foreign policy that originated with ex-Trotskyites and Henry Jackson democrats.

Attached: alex jones tin foil.jpg (1280x720, 81K)

Your parents aren't "better" in any meaningful sense and that's fairly obvious because you quite frankly don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, and have delusions that you are supporting a better world "for all of us" as if you have the slightest fucking clue what would even constitute a better world, or who would be included in this "all of us" that you're talking about. You haven't presented a single fucking positive idea of your own besides telling people who are antagonized against the system you support while pretending not to with these utterly impotent criticisms of it. Racist and poorly educated white trash pose a much larger threat to the coming techno-feudalism than any bullshit Chapo Traphouse book sold in the mall and financed by Wall Street via Pro-Publica. Wignats on the internet are unironically a more serious threat than the entirety of the astroturfed "Anarcho-Communist" scene.

Sure, I'm not someone fundamentally unique and my self-image isn't tied to the idea that I have some unique insight into the way the world works rather than my view being a fairly natural consequence of who I am and where I am rooted.

Your pet ideology in practice is steered by specially sociopathic greedy people.

Greed is an ugly word for ambition, the same impetus that drives all greater accomplishment.

> "Neoliberalism" is an economic policy of deregulation and marketization

All I'm saying is both pursue vehement free market capitalism and would trade any citizens soul for a sheckle or two. Both want to keep the military-industrial complex alive and functioning

Did you seriously just use tribal societies in a pre-civilized state as a good indicator of how our world works?
Sure, we could go back to tribalism but trust me, life would be much harder, I am pretty sure you're aware of this as well.
Regardless, you're not doing jack shit, you're working hard to feed and supply for your family, why do you use your energy in such a useless way as to buy into and then spew back out /pol/ ideology? Even if you "came up" with all of it yourself, do you think this will help you in any way shape or form? Obviously none of us can have a meaningful impact on his own, but if your goals would be a truly more balanced form of capitalism, you'd have lots of support from everyone, as opposed to now where barely anyone agrees with you outside your little internet tough guy bubble.

If you don't want a better world but just want a better world for you and your closest relatives, then the support will be miniscule obviously, Donald Trump and other populists are mere opportunists and they see that there is resentment amongst the middle class and the people's that lost a lot of their former status or at least fear to lose it...they exploit that for their own cause, which again is power. Donald Trump doesn't give a damn about the working class, that much is certain, he's not an idiot but he isn't a good leader either and a lot of people realise that but it's highly likely they will vote another Republican or even him next time around simply because the desire for someone that can change things is very high and very exploitable by the right person.
Of course, voting for the establishment will never change anything, but people are too dumb to vote for smaller parties because they all think their vote won't matter if they vote smaller parties, but it does, it sends a big massage and political education should be way more important in the US than it is now. The extremism from both sides of the spectrum and the corrupt politicians are already enough of a sign for that.

You seriously think youre moving shit? You're just another tool exploited by the system and you actually feel good about it too. It's hilarious.

Yeah this shit would never happen with 7 billion people on the planet.

Immediate war.

I talked about Jeanne Jeno because leftists love to masturbate about the concept of "Heterarchy" as if it actually has any real meaningful utility and they often bring up Jeanne Jeno as if it was some anarcho communist paradise as opposed to some absolutely barbaric hell hole where people were regularly slaughtered in the market square and left to rot in the sun.

As far as your second paragraph is concerned, I'm not particularly convinced there is a such thing as a "better world" in a universal sense. While it extends beyond myself and my relatives, better qualities of life are created by explicitly on a macro scale excluding people who are not capable of replicating the particular society that is looking to improve itself. There is no universal better world, and tribalism will always be a feature of the interactions between complex societies because they can only retain wealth and prosperity by not allowing outsiders to take their resources and displace their people. On a certain level, there is no future in which Africans have a "better world" they can belong to unless they can become capable of creating it themselves, which will certainly not occur if we continue to allow this paradigm where everyone capable of leadership in these countries fucks off to Europe and America. A "better world" will always be relative, and while it's not a zero sum game, there is no world of prosperity and ecological balance while also having infinity niggers being imported to eat Buffalo wild wings and watch marvel movies on the public dime.

Except that's simplifying and falsifying history. The original group of "neocons" in the Democratic party in the early 70s were pro-big labour unions who were pro-"military-industrial complex" (like most blue collar workers were/are). They hated the New Left who they saw as anti-working class elitists and they hated and subverted McGovern and Carter (an actual neoliberal who began liberalizing finance and energy markets before Reagan). They primarily went into the Republican party by the 80s because they were for massive increases in military spending, the free market rhetoric was only for show. Neoliberalisms goal is to abolish government and privatize everything but neoconservativism wants to expand government defence spending perpetually. There's a real contradiction there.

You bring nothing to the table. No one wants the same dystopia except administered by bloodthirsty poltards who can't even run their own dogshit imageboard.

Is there actually a real contradiction there? At what point do the lines between private ownership and authoritarian government blur? How much territory does the Google campus need to cover before they are effectively a government? You know there are already privately owned towns in certain parts of the US right?

It isn’t actually. What there is to lust after is allowable. Ambition and charisma are perfectly human and appreciable.
My “pet” is a social adjustment, not a cult of zombie hippies or something

It’s better than a dystopia of a homogenized blob making decisions based on who can wring their hands the hardest over their precious “humanity.”

I think you have a good mentality that drives you away from sinful behavior :3

You forgot to ask her about the collar

Yes there is a big contradiction. Neoconservatism is really about hierarchical command and control on a global scale. Look back at the Reagan administrations transformation of the military, they were "successful" and were totally ready for fighting Soviet tanks in central Europe but neoliberalism creates a fluid networked (dis)order and the neocons didn't understand the realities of the asymmetrical warfare that would emerge in postmodern societies.

>To the extent that many younger women are political (especially on University campuses) it is largely a mechanism to determine and enforce status, not actually a consequence of any seriously held beliefs. This is made very apparent if you actually try and talk to them about their beliefs in a respectful way, because the loudest voices shouting at the protest often cannot even articulate what they believe in a calm and quiet setting.
Dis kinda tru, but is by no means true across the board. This one bitch in my HS was intent on becoming the next pres and she graduated top of the class.

Neoconservatism is basically neoliberalism with another contradiction (nationalism) added on top.

Read the book, the whole system is a joke who managed to get public consent because of "muh freedumb" yuppies.

I don't feel good about it. I'm incredibly black pilled about the future and am not particularly looking forward to the continuation of the decline of the American empire as more and of the institutions my ancestry helped build become completely dysfunctional due to the actions of woke capital. I'm not looking forward to my children growing up in a world where the civic religion of "progressive democratic socialism" is pushed onto my children while they are simultaneously told that they are both in charge and responsible for all the evils of the world, but they also cannot advocate for their own interests and doing so explicitly is considered morally beyond the pale. I don't take joy in the fact that the consequences of the status quo "progressive" leftism is an utter garbage planet with infinite consumer serfs imported to consume resources and pollute until the entirety of the world has been thrown into ecological dysfunction. It would be infinitely easier for me to just simply comply and absorb into the system and try and cynically steal as many scraps as I can while retreating further and further to find white majority bourgeois areas like so many liberals/leftists do.

Based

Sure man, there will be a small amount of strongly politically motivated women, and a functional society does have some mechanism to allow them to make valuable contributions when they can. It is not however a functional impulse to take the ambitions of those few and project them onto all women as if that's actually a reasonable representative of how women work. This is also true for men, but generally speaking there are a much larger proportion of men who are genuinely politically interested rather than using politics as a mechanism for determining status.

I think you are greatly underestimating the amount of Zionism and urge towards centralization among neo-liberals. The technocrats are highly hierarchical in their thinking and they are some of the most neo-liberal when it comes to their expectations of regulations of the market.

/pol/ is a homogenized blob. it's the same tired, retarded shit every day. you clueless fucks don't even know who 99% of the globalists are.
inhumanity won't save us, there's a good reason ethnic cleansing is repugnant to every civilized mind.
honestly, just get psychological help. your life will be a lot easier.

/pol/ is saved from the extreme level of homogenization found on the left by being too stupid to form a coherent position.

The life-cult that we call the political left is the anti-civilizational as it gets. The only solution is an inhumanity that recognizes that civilization as an entity (and the brutality inherent to it) should itself be prioritized over any individual or group of human lives. What you want isn’t civilization, it’s a return to pre-civilized state with digital toys.

For one, ethnic cleansing is a thing that literally every emerging society engages in whether it be through literal genocide, or passive displacement of outsiders. Hell, white progressive hipsters moving into black neighborhoods and unintentionally driving up housing prices by not constantly committing crime is ethnic cleansing.
Secondly, /pol/ is not a homogeneous blob. There are constantly threads made by leftists while the general culture of /pol/ is one you could easily call right wing, it is much less of a homogeneous blob than any spaces leftists occupy.

This. Only the echo chamber expats will disagree.

Lmao, leftism (according to your definition) actually has thinkers, like living thinkers not to mention dead ones as well. All you cretins have is Jewdan Peterson and some C tier youtube celebrities. Off yourself /pol/ nigger.
Oh, I forgot, you have people like Spengler, Evola and Adi himself.

Can't tell if just big words or smart person

Greed =/= ambition.

Is Elon Musk greedy? Maybe, but not to the scale that his position could allow

Peterson is a left liberal. You shouldn't lecture on things you know nothing about.

You know what must be done

Attached: a5d6769c266f6b4bb9f20a8992724ae7a07c545dac54b5dc92d915fdf659bcaa.jpg (960x612, 77K)

Well yeah, there's always a false or hoped end-goal that movements like that try to promote.

In reality, it shouldn't be promoted but rather sought out by those that are genuinely interested.

Ah, the old "I don't like him anymore, now he is an enemy" trope.

Can you at least own your idiots?

/leftypol/ :^)

Attached: 1555748520203.jpg (819x1200, 86K)

Please don’t agree with me if you’re the white power guy. I despise your brand of corporeal politics almost as much as I do the left’s.

He's not my enemy, I appreciate him very much. But politically he has always been an enemy of the identitarian right.
He's not a right-winger, you're just politically illiterate. He's a somewhat traditionalist liberal in the British sense.

>p-pls don't agree with me if you are x
I'm not but shut the fuck up you bitch.

I'm not a /pol/tard, can someone explain the general zeitgeist?

At least you’re all recognizing that this place has changed tremendously in recent history.

Like how I’ve started to change interactions with this woman. She and I both post on this board far more than we did before. And it is simply because now there is something there, as is typical for emotional interactions. :3

Every single peak or valley of this process has been necessary.

Dude, I don't have anything against you or your ideas (first response to you) but you sir are a cuck.

You can literally all go migrate somewhere to form your own de facto ethnostate now but you just don't seem to have the will. Why? Hint: it's not because muh waco. Take a long hard look at yourself and the answer will become clear.

The horrors you wish to inflict are incomparable to gentrification and you're being disingenuous.

Furthermore I suspect the vast majority of leftist posts are baits crafted by polacks themselves. Genuine lefties would get PTSD and run away in 5 minutes.

Bottom line is /pol/ is a pile of shit and that's why you're here to try access the site's """intellectuals""" to proselytize your stale message.

I don't really particularly like Peterson. I think he does have a point that in practice taking control of certain aspects of your personal life can help in giving you a better perspective to approach larger issues beyond yourself but he's certainly not what I would call a philosopher.

You're correct though in that as it stands right now, the right does not have very many professional philosophers. Some of that is a result of the post-WW2 academic environment being very effective at oustering and deplatforming anyone to the right of Steven Pinker (and some even laughably calling him fascist as well) but I think that there are also significant problem internally within the right that prevent right wing thinkers from catching real ground in America. There are plenty of real right wing thinkers in Europe like Daniel Friberg, Alain De Benoit, and until recently Guillaume Faye, but as it stands the non-neo conservative right has effectively been shut out of the kinds of institutions where thinkers emerge, while leftists are intentionally selected for and preserved. An easy example of this is Richard Spencer who was pursuing a Ph.d in political philosophy at Duke after doing an undergrad program in history at University of Chicago. He was essentially forced out of the supposedly "conservative" Duke University political science/philosophy department because of his early activism and even though his dissertation was going well it was said in no uncertain terms that his work was going to be rejected because of his political views rather than anything to do with the quality of his scholarship. I'd agree with you that the dissident right is in a bad way in terms of serious contemporary political leadership, but this has in a large part been the result of intentional strategies to exclude those who actually are capable of high level scholarship while using resources to promote guys like Alex Jones (until recently when he became a Boomer civic nationalist instead of just a catch-all right wing conspiracy shill) and Jordan Peterson in their stay.

Everyone else is technically the cuck in this situation, if you want to look at it like that.

Sometimes it pays to think about things very long and very well :3

Nah I mean in regard to your seemingly (from what I've seen in this thread, no more) one-sided infatuation with what internet rules dictate is a man.

>Won't you take me to NAZI-TOOOWN
>Won't you take me to
>Nazi Town

The horrors I wish to inflict surely can't be any worse than simultaneously turning 6 billion Jews into lampshades and bars of soap. May you truly get the Gay Space Communism (free with your Amazon Prime subscription) you desire my friend.

‘Internet rules’

Buddy what the FUCK is going on? I say we ask this. Why is every single person on here determined to be a loser no matter how much everyone else is trying to tel you you’re not.

Holy fucking SHIT it’s annoying. It’s not one-sided either retard we flirt every night. STAY TUNED :p

Let's start with the current economic situation, I'll break everything down in simple terms.

1. Our world is getting more imbalanced every passing day, the rich of yesterday are now the super-rich and they not just hold power but generate it through the amassment of capital.

2. The nation states can not contain the globally projected power of mega corporations and superbanks, effectively overriding the political power completely and making change harder every moment.

3. People are realising that they are products, subconsciously or consciously. The incel epidemic stems from the raalisation of average or below average males, recognizing their place in the "economy of love", they want to compete with higher ranking males for the high status women, but don't have the capital(looks and intelligence) to amass status through social means(friends/partners) or monetary means(which also leads back to the decline in a fair economical situation in our global world). Women, socialized to please, turn themselves into products and men turn themselves into consumers, starting a vicious cycle of mutual degradation, ruining the chances for healthy and respectful relationships by viewing physical and spiritual love as yet another consumer good, that is, as most others, interchangeable.

4. The lack in social cohesion due to the urbanization that stems from the industrial need for workers in close proximity to the factory, led to the needs for status being projected outward. Status symbols become more important the more anonymous a society becomes.
This in turn made people less happy because they are turned into mere consumerist machines, influenced by the opportunity to impress others, the media and the advertisement industry.

5. People are afraid of drifting into a world where they lose their status, some even lost their status already, the 2007 global economic crisis is at the core of our current political and social landscape, it made people afraid of losing their wealth, their social standing and their luxury goods. They now vote for populists like Trump, whose promises allude to the golden age of America, the 50s and 60s, a time in which seemingly everything was fine.
6. The economy that relies on constant and perpetual growth, drives people into poverty but at the same time requires more workers at lower wages, immigration is the solution and the result of our luxury goods if you will, but it is not making people happier.

Well these are some key thesis'.

Attached: 1556922498757.jpg (859x1526, 578K)

Every single one of those points is either inaccurate or wrong.

>Defends heavily
Aight den

Even if that's the case, hop off a little bit is all I'm saying

Okay mate, argue against them.

>c-commie!
lel no. they're bland too
what i'm looking for is vivacious young posters with enough pizzazz to spice things up a little.

The other guy in this thread irked me with his phony sentimentalism. I despise the handwringing over his family. I want someone who would gladly send his family to the moloch if it would benefit civilization, and no white supremicist would do that. Their only desire is to have the political apparatus lavish power and pleasures onto white bodies, and I find that disgusting.

Yeah I agree, but I would never be able to sacrifice my family for an anonymous mass of animals like our fellow men.

If this is /pol/ ideology, we hate them why?

Looks good to me

It's not /pol/ ideology, I just thought you wanted me to give you a heads up on the current situation. Pol's solution to all of these points is: kill niggers, prop up whites. They're mental midgets and they don't understand that the problems they all try to blame on immigrants and lefties and roasties, are not as simple as turning the world into a little petting zoo in which the elites visit the good white man.

Oh, the elites of course also have to be killed, unless they're Christian white conservative males, them they're free to rape the little white boy ass.

Sounds very isocentric

Also, checked

If you can’t conceive of sacrificing ourself or others for civilization and its fruits, then you’re a lost cause. I’d let the whole of humanity disappear if it were necessary to have a single column of the Parthenon outlast is for a moment.

Every ideology is isocentric and /pol/ doesn't even have a real ideology, none of these people genuinely reads or writes anything, they're just very dumb and Pat each other on the back constantly while autistically screeching at everyone who tries to open a new approach to things.

Edgy.
Have my upvote. +1

Bud I am barely posting. I’m at work right now actually man doing real shit. :3

the mechanism he used to develop China was itself a neoliberal one. that's the argument, anyway

Reddit would have gutted me for rejecting their prized empathy.

What's the point of having human progress if you sacrifice humanity for it? Progress for the sake of progress is exactly the reason why this world has become such a prison now.

Facts, that's why the goal of the economy being to maintain a constant rate of growth puzzels me.

For what? to sustain MORE people?

It's simply because people are never satisfied, the people that push our world forward are exactly the kind of people you don't want when your goal is longevity and a healthy earth, that's why theyre at the top.
The system has to feed itself to not collapse, stagnation is out of the question, everyone gets eaten up by the other insects as soon as they stop moving. Human beings are like cannibalistic ants, just waiting for a moment of frailty, a moment of weakness and when anyone shows it, they dig in until there is nothing left, only the strong can lead the strong and the weak are collateral damage.

Agree on all points except 3.
>The incel epidemic stems from the raalisation of average or below average males, recognizing their place in the "economy of love", they want to compete with higher ranking males for the high status women, but don't have the capital(looks and intelligence) to amass status through social means(friends/partners) or monetary means(which also leads back to the decline in a fair economical situation in our global world).

tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=2

sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040920063537.htm

This has always been a fact of life. Not every male gets to reproduce. Maybe today the competition is fiercer and man are more vocal through the Internet.

Also, women have to adjust as well as men. We all desire an ideal partner but we eventually settle with what is available.

I can't really be bothered right now but in short and without further reply:

1.'The rich' aren't that relevant politically they enjoy only a small share of economic power, they're also not a static group of people and on a global scale equality is on the rise. The growth in national inequality isn't a result of 'captial amassment' or whatever, it is the heightened rationalization of meritocratic processes - the IQ stratification is becoming more pronounced. It's not that some guy is just getting all the money. Bezos will die, his kid will be retarded and spend it on coke. Then some random Asian guy will create the next big thing. It's not dynastical, practially all the super rich are first generation and that even with IQ heritability which is far more important than inheriting wealth.

2. Corporations are not to be seen as isolated entities. They're lines of production that service human appetite and constantly go bankrupt and are replaced. The average S&P 500 listed corporation has a lifespan of around 15 years.

3. It's all nonsense here. Let's just address the incel point. Enforced monogomy has broken down and now females choose to have relationships with a smaller pool of higher status males. This is especially pronounced at the lower end of the economy because the state here acts as a provider.

4, The decrease in social cohesion is largely a result of the lack of a need for social cohesion. With increased material wealth and a welfare state the value of community decreases. In a society where you're dead when you sprain your ankle you need more group support. This seems very obvious. The other factor of course, which you hilariously ignore, is mass immigration. This has been demonstrated over and over again in studies. There's a lot of social cohesion in Iceland or Japan for example even though both felt the influence of aforementioned developments.

5. People have always been afraid of losing status, what a banal point. The actual reason for Trump winning are the catastrophic effects of third and second world mass immigration on American society including the utter corruption of the political system. One need only compare the infrastructure of California in the '50s and today to understand what Trump alludes to with the slogan.

6. People are not driven into poverty, they're becoming richer quicker than was ever thought possible.

There's just a basic ignorance of reality in what you write. Just read economic statistics, they're not made up by the monopoly man. The disaster of capitalism/liberalism isn't pauperization, it is that it works. It is catapulting us at lightning speed through different social configurations and massive technological evolutions the path of which we cannot anticipate and without anyone able to consciously influence the direction. It increases our ability to multiply and exploit resources in a manner that it threatens to exhaust our entire planet. That's the proper reality grounded criticism.

here

Oh, don't get me wrong, I never wanted to imply that incels are correct in their self assessment.
It's just that they think that they feel ostracized and have turned this into a defense mechanism.
"I don't even want to have sex or love, I hate roasties."
Men are a defacto less desirable resource by their very nature. One man can impregnate thousands of women while one woman can only get pregnant and successfully raise a few kids even nowadays.
Incels just think that society is at fault for this and that it's somehow a recent development, when in fact, people are getting less sex through the entire social strada. They feel cheated out of a submissive wife because nowadays girls and women are less tied down to men and a certain town or village, they can not deal with the complex reality of human relationships and therefore isolate themselves from it even mentally, justifying their lack of love and friendship by saying that they never wanted those things in the first place.

>>it is the heightened rationalization of meritocratic processes
>markets
>meritocratic
that people can actually conceive such things is at least a case against egalitarianism i guess.

1. Supply some data for that, I am highly skeptical of your claim that super rich people are as a majority first generation and "self made men". Just Bezos for example was basically born into millions.
Capital is heritage, obviously enough if you're honest for a second, your entire argument relies on the assumption that Jeff Bezos and others will let their kids decide what is to happen with their money (which obviously will not be the case, as they always make sure that the money is regenerating itself through businesses and stocks). This first point alone made me not want to read more of your bullshit, but I will.
....and he's a /pol/ tard, what a surprise.

Attached: 1556944198090.png (500x511, 182K)

Join a local socialist political party and not only campaign for anti-neoliberal policies, but make sure your party reforms itself too so it doesn't just mirror neoliberal structures of hierarchy but is truly democratic.

See, there are studies on this. You don't need to rely on your own prejudices. Just look up how income is stratified by IQ. That should suffice, right? If it weren't meritocratic then people with low IQ and the right name or inherited political power would tilt the whole thing. Or just look at average IQ by college. If it weren't meritocratic then you would have to expect an average IQ in Harvard or Yale of say 100-105, right? You could even look at development over time where according to the previous post you would see a decline in average IQ because of increasing nepotistic corruption. Or you know, just continue with your sassy solopsism.

Yeah, People become richer quicker than ever before, but that's just 10% or even a smaller percentage of people. The trickle down effect and per capita wealth isn't exactly a good representation of social and balanced economical progress.

They are most often middle-class it's true, but that is exactly the life and status that is disappearing. Next to nobody that's working for most of his time here on earth with minimum wage jobs goes home and start learning coding in his free-time.

>income being held by high IQ people now means that market forces are meritocratic
>high IQ means that you must make lots of money
You're so far off your base it's not even funny. Learn how to interpret statistics and studies and don't fall for logical fallacies before you come across like a retard.

>being the son of a multi millionaire now counts as being part of the "middle class"
Are you kidding me?

Just take your shitty Bezos for example, the guy went to top tier Ivy League college and had a sense for IT during a time where IT was and still is the fastest growing market...oh, and he had millions from his daddy, what exactly do you think is "meritocratic" about him amassing billions of money? Money doesn't really tend to go to the person with the highest amount of integrity.

It's was a guess really, based on IQ income literature, the point was that almost none of them will have been born billionaires. There's going to be some wealth because of IQ heritabilty although I suspect that the majority will not have been born millionaires. Google search right now says 30% have been born rich which is about the expected.

I'm not on pol.

but he's cute

It's not within the scope of established social science and certainly not of observational studies to make such conclusions. Unlike with natural sciences there is never a single theory(newton's mechanics etc.) that accounts for everything. There is never burden of proof on claims without this establishment of the natural sciences. It's factually impossible to truly discern the chicken or the egg in these cases. In this case nutrition certainly follows familial-wealth is highly implicated in intellectual development and there's a host of other unsolveable methodological complications.
.Yeah, the very wealthy are overrepresentated for sure, having all the free time in the world to pursue novel yet uncapitalised upon projects, but still they are a tiny amount of anything at all.

> IQ this IQ that
Why are people on Yea Forums obsessed with it? You barely see anyone talking about IQ in serious political discourse.

Correlates with positive outcomes in multiple areas of life including financial

See I didn't want to add replies because of this sort of brainletism. I nowhere stated that IQ=lots of money. I was talking about averages. Why do you have to use these strawmen? I'm not sure what you mean by 'market forces' but obviously you could contruct a theory of a exploitative structure which runs on meritocratic principles (in fact all of them did more or less). But I didn't address that, right? I was using the term in a limited sense - the more capable you are in achieving 'market goals' the more you will earn. Now if you think that a restaurant is an inherently exploitative enterprise and the better paid waiters are the stormtroopers of the capital then ok but that wouldn't make my point invalid.

it's the very reason you are unable to grasp the answer to this

Familial wealth is not that relevant. You need to look deeper into the issue as there will be all sorts of nonsense thrown at you at the surface. This particular notion likely relies on comparing starved third world children with normally developed first worlders. But we have adoption studies and all that, you inherit from your biological parents. enviroment is rather weak as a variable especially in the first world.

Yeah your guess what shit, you throwing around your ignorance on the matter doesn't mean that it becomes a more meaningful guess.
The 30 percent number by the way are just the ones that were born to be the super rich, that doesn't mean that the others were born into poverty, not even 40 percent of the now existing super rich come from a middle class background.
Capital generates capital, it shouldn't be hard to wrap your head around that.

It's not true and the 'trickle down' thing is leftist nonsense. The entire world is being lifted out of poverty at the moment. If you're 20 or so and live to the average life span you will have witnessed the end of world hunger and Africa being lifted into a sort of middle class configuration. Assuming they're not gonna chimp out on nationalism, which is quite the assumption.

>Africa being lifted out of hunger by the hands of the obese white man is not the best symbol for the trickle down effect ever
Look mate, we know you're an idiot, there's no point in trying to deny it.

You're intellectually dishonest and dumb.

You actually think that an intelligent man surrounded by sand and plastic trash has anywhere near the possibilities to build wealth that Mark Jewerberg had?
Now that's of course a hard contrast but it doesn't change the fact that this shit system is not fucking built on merit.

I think it's just semantically invalid, knowledge is power(educational attainment enabled by ones high IQ is used to pursue ends of manipulation of the natural world) and to evaluate 'merit' in a 'meritocracy' you need a definition of merit which just isn't something that seems to exist.
If someone as a high IQ and educated individual devotes his life to economical activities that later prove to seriously undermine the necessary environment of human beings, how can that be merit over just being a simple bread and circus pleb?

Of course capital plays a role but you have to understand the issue of IQ and its heritability. The chances of you being competent with money are greater if your parents were competent with money, not just culturally but much stronger biologically. Across generations they're all regressing to the mean IQ and then they lose it, quick. With the super rich (very few exceptions) you're looking at two, max three generations of people. They haven't been there before and they're not gonna be there for long. Accumulated wealth is irrelevant across time. Obviously marxists can't accept that and throw some random articles about some study but that's the reality. Look how many aristocrats are famous businessmen. They were tens of thousands of people and had all the money just 200 years ago. Now they've lived for generations on liquifying the exploited wealth of a thousand years, art and such. If the vulgar marxist analysis were correct then all the corporate owners and executives would have aristocratic names. Instead they're in large number immigrants whose grandparents have been farmers.

Well my dude, don't you see that money is merit xD?!
That's basically what he means.

If you set out to make money and become super rich, then you usually gotta have a high IQ to be the one that actually makes it to the point of being rich, so I guess that's his definition of "merit". It's not like the guy can analyse statistics in any way shape or form, it's painfully obvious when people never set a foot into college but then act like scientific interpreters.

>obviously if he is already rich, then he is going to inherit the genes to make more munnnneyyyyy hurrrrrrr

Hold on I want to make a brainlet compilation with you at the top and the center. What. The. FUCK.

Apparently if you have enough money by the way, you can buy a zeitgeist, at some stage in the game of monopoly, and justify your wealth by a metric that further solidifies your social strata— IQ. Clearly this number, holocaust-like, can be imprinted onto each of our certificates as we go from institution to institution, hoping to impress others with the mathematical or verbal “”””skill””””” we have innately .

I take a contrary stance to all of this, I think much of how we are is simply our surroundings. And while I do think that the races are different, I don’t think we should be ascribing different linear values for intelligence. It’s rather racist anyway, as it turns out.

The Jews are the biggest racists against blacks because their IQ metric discriminates against them severely, and the blacks don’t even realize it. :3

Thank you based Obongo for saving humanity from the recession

I'm not saying that why the constant need to build strawmen? But this has been studied. You can compare the effect of inherited wealth to IQ. Having a high IQ in a western country is preferable to inheriting wealth. There's of course a point at which this becomes true but wealth does not have a strong effect, IQ does. I gotta go now so do discuss among yourselves how wrong I am.

The rich in Europe are in large part still related to aristocracy, maybe you forgot that your American version of Aristocracy are called early capitalist or "old money" families?

You're a brainlet and stop acting like saying something can only be interpreted the way you like. Every sentence carries with it multiple implications.

Oh right, I almost forgot, we have the /pol/ visitors here, quick guys, throw around racial slurs so that they think everything is orderly here!
Degenerate nigger faggot, God will punish you for your impunity.
The day of the rope can not come soon enough for you roasties!

>Having a high IQ in a western country is preferable to inheriting wealth.
Impertinent, the question here is asking if this tendency is getting stronger or weaker with more and more income inequality.

>conservative
found the retard

The answer is obvious, eventually the super rich will be able to literally "outbreed" the rest of humanity, generating a new class of genetic overlords that will have all the wealth and the intelligence to themselves, until these people decide that life is boring when you waste it in superficial luxury and the abuse of your fellow men and become Nietzsche's higher men, using their combined powers to give birth to the overman/Übermensch.

Hey, now, maybe he just started browsing /pol/ he can't know any better.

I dislike particularly about free-markeeters that their rhetoric is so obviously tautological, they maintain that everyone has a social responsibility to make money, yet when anyone criticizes their system it can only amount to that this is not quite working out in some way, which of course means that these are socially-irresponsible individuals who should not be listened to.

The first part of your mega sentence was really nicely put user.
>they maintain that everyone has a social responsibility to make money[...]
I particularly liked the contrast that you painted between the word social, and the word money, which obviously is worth nothing without the »social animal« as Aristotle called us. They lack honesty and insight into their little system of thought where being rich is almost equal to being a good person at this point. Having money is merit in an on itself to them.

To the person who actually understands what being a White Man requires in our current America.
I applaud you and your effort holding your own against these people. I believe in you user, we need more men like you in all races. Unfortunately America has been overridden by outside cultures that are anti-anglo European and we're going to be stuck in this melting pot until this stew is ate.
Anyways, you and I are a dying breed. No, you aren't a /pol/ flesh incarnate, you're just very racially aware of the differences and that is a good thing.
I hope you get the job you need to grow your family and I hope the hardships in the future mow over like the first lawn cut of spring.

I'm a bit younger than you at 23, but I have the same view on the basics. I'll make America White again by the values I instil into my residential area, and by the way I raise me kids. Culture is important and I'll be damned if I'm the one who let's it die.

Lmao, go back to /pol/ and take the other "racially aware" maggot with you, you fucking larping faggot.
Yes, you're the only enlightened ones, literally nobody else can see that niggers are a plight on the American society, congratulations!

New middle class = majority of the old upper class

Edit: thanks for the Reddit Gold kind MAGApede! I never knew the day would come.

This is correct

>the old upper class has disintegrated into the middle class while some of them have become super rich instead
>this somehow disproves my point

What point? Wasnt refuting shit

Reminder.

Attached: this_is_pol.jpg (3000x4200, 3.31M)

My main takeaway from reading this thread is that the 'left' despise and contemn white working class people

is the_donald based?

Something tells me that you didn't read anything in here and that this "refined" opinion of yours is actually older than a few minutes.

I read the entire thread and anytime a white working class person started explaining why they didn't want immigration they were called a white trash burger flipper

Oh I'd go as far as to say, it's the main source for new blood for the empty husk that is /pol/. You know, the old /pol/ sucked, there were actual opinions being shared and political discourse was something they also did, now it's so much better, it's just like reddit now, people post the same stuff every day for 2 weeks or so and then they get lots of upvotes(they're called You's now) and if they don't have any new ideas they just go back to the old stuff, posting webms of niggers or hating mudslimes, we have so much fun on /pol/ now that all the intellectuals are gone and we can voice our incorrect opinions without criticisms at all :D

There was never much discussion on pol, it just used to be a lot funnier. I remember trying to talk about Spengler back in like 2013 and nobody ever engaged me

Oh, what a shame, you must have missed the parts where he said he wanted to exterminate all of them like the Jews in the Holocaust (which he also made fun of haha, because yeah, he is just so based and redpilled). Oh man what a bummer, I mean the white working class is a sacred symbol and I think they should totally be allowed to reign over the rest of the world like masters over their insect slaves.

Oh wait, you agree with all this anyway...there's no point in being ironic with you /pol/ tards.

Well /pol/ was never exactly the leading intellectual forum on this website, but at least they had some self referential humor and understood irony and sarcasm even if it was aimed at them. Nowadays they act like some kind of white Christian warrior caste which is hilarious seeing as they're just skinny fat little twerps sitting on their asses all day

The white working class literally just want to be left alone you disgusting trash

Just listen to yourself you little faggot, you talk about them as if they were some tiny little fluffy mice that are on the brink of extinction because nobody leaves them alone ;_;
Go have sex you dumb incel

It's everything worthy of mockery about /pol/ without any of the redeeming stuff. In other words they are:
> stupid
> willfully ignorant
> anti-intellectual
> no sense of history and a memory so short it would make the average American seem well-informed by comparison
> loud and obnoxious
> cruel and inhumane but also too cowardly to live by their dicta
> will push their half-baked ideology on everyone and will connect anything no matter how remote to their culture war nonsense
But they also:
> lack any sense of irony or humour that old /pol/ had
> any distrust or skepticism towards their shabbos goy of a messiah
> tolerance towards dissent - the reddit mentality is strong and they bring it here
They are utter garbage.

They demonstrably want to be and are not allowed to be left alone. Stop projecting your sexless dicksucking fantasies

I'm not the other guy but the majority of leaders are simply institutionalised bugmen. Look at the biographies of Macron, May, Cameron, Obama, etc