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

/lounge/ - Lounge

The Wizard's Lounge

Password (For file deletion.)
  • Supported file types are: jpg, jpeg, bmp, gif, png, webm, pdf, mp4
  • Max filesize is 15 MB and max file dimensions are 10000 x 10000
  • You may upload 3 file(s) per post.

File: 1488755984763.gif (10.32 KB, 400x400, bothaxes.gif) ImgOps iqdb

 No.133215[Last 50 Posts]


This thread is for the civil discussion of political ideology and current affairs.

Don't know where you are politically? Take the test!


To start us off, here's a few question I've been meaning to ask my fellow wizards for ages:

>Where do you stand politically and why?

>Where do you recieve your news? Do you trust them?

>How do you currently feel about your country on a political level? Should there be change, if any?

Once again, please keep the topic and rules in mind. Political discussion among peers, especially fellow wizards, is extremely important as we must keep each other informed of the world around us and be free of ignorance.


File: 1488756533955.jpg (17.91 KB, 600x600, politics.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>Don't know where you are politically? Take the test!
wow cool i'm above it all!

>Where do you stand politically and why?

fundamental wizlamist.

>Where do you recieve your news? Do you trust them?

wizchan, other wizards. 100%.

>How do you currently feel about your country on a political level? Should there be change, if any?

wizland is alright. there should be less politics though, i think that's a necessary change.


Bernie Buxist.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation website, Techdirt, imageboards.

My country needs UBI and requires a stronger zerowork movement because we either figure out a way to live without work or the robots will eat us alive.


Hope this isnt a way for a nefarious mod to tag our IPs with our political beliefs, then track or ban us if we're determined to be in an opposing political tribe.



That is very funny and all, but I actually am genuinely and sincerely interested in where someone like you might respectfully side with politically.

Furthermore, why do you think there should be less politics?

Frankly, at least one political thread seems to be perfect for wizards to discuss this kind of thing – people who don't like it can always just hide it.


>My country needs UBI and requires a stronger zerowork movement because we either figure out a way to live without work or the robots will eat us alive.

Interesting perspective, but do you think that such an situation like that would even happen anytime soon? Wouldn't scientists and such actively try and prevent an overnight robot takeover and say, make things more gradual as people grow old and adapt to new ways?

In my opinion, I don't quite see UBI as something necessary just yet, not until we're consistently economically on top to be able to sustain such a thing.

But I could be wrong and I am looking forward to hearing what you might say.


That is something that has crossed my mind yes, but I have full and absolute trust in the moderation team and that hopefully in time, they might see this as something peaceful and constructive.


I don't dislike politics, but I don't like how these threads become magnets for the /pol/ users who need to fuck the hell off. It's giving them a reason to stay, or to bring more here. This is why I don't want politics threads.


because outsiders create and populate them



That does not seem very fair to actual wizards who actually do wish to discuss politics though – why take away a rule-abiding topic from wizards just because a few troublemakers might come along?

Troublemakers are found everywhere across the site all the time, yet we do not ban all topics. For instance, outsiders love anime and video games, yet we are capable of discussing such topics freely. Why not politics if we keep to our topic and rules, discussing things civilly?

Again, malicious /pol/ users typically cannot control themselves and will be met with proper action as swiftly as they come if they misbehave, possibly leaving forever.

It is simply unfair for wizards not to be able to discuss politics because it just might attract outsiders when by default, wizchan is very hardly known to begin with.


File: 1488758168187.png (17.24 KB, 480x400, chart.png) ImgOps iqdb

Approximately as expected, though I think some of the strange questions and lack of a neutral response put me a little higher on the social scale than I may be.

>Where do you stand politically and why?

If you mean which political party I support there is none because I live in America and none of the parties reflect my beliefs.

>Where do you receive your news

Al Jazeera, the economist, reuters, NPR, sometimes the BBC or CSM
Yeah, for the most part.

>How do you currently feel about your country on a political level?

It's fucking awful, we have retards electing retards to lead their retarded asses. The founding fathers were right, commoners should never have been allowed to vote.
>Should there be change, if any?
Yes, first of all we need to storm the capital and execute everyone in government, pull a french revolution. I don't know what reforms we ought to implement after that, but it would be a good start to the proccess. Maybe we can make the political class required to be eunuchs or something, who knows.


>why take away a rule-abiding topic from wizards just because a few troublemakers might come along?
>because a few troublemakers might come along?

>Why not politics if we keep to our topic and rules, discussing things civilly?

because it never happens

it's like you've never seen how this goes



>because it never happens

And why couldn't it?

Wizards are infinitely more mature here than anywhere else, and in fact that's precisely the reason why I feel a politics thread can be appropriate. Do you not trust your fellow wizard to be respectful?

If they evidently do not act very respectful at all, then would not taking proper action on them suffice? Why ban a topic altogether?

>it's like you've never seen how this goes

That just seems extremely close-minded, wizard, at least give this thread a chance. We shall see how it goes, and if it doesn't work out, then well, we tried. Ending it all early just because of speculation is just not very rational.


>because it just might attract outsiders
No. These threads have attracted confirmed /pol/ users. Both complete outsiders and /pol/-crossposting "wizards." On election day they were definitely there, posting all of their shitty Trump memes. And they raided us during the time of that poor wizard's suicide.

>when by default, wizchan is very hardly known to begin with.

Unfortunately wizchan is fairly well known out of "da alt-chanZ." We have the misfortune of getting shat on by scumbag "journalists," and we are well known by /r9k/, /pol/ and other shitholes.



I do not see any Trump memes here, do you?

Besides, those places in which you have named are in themselves still largely innately obscure. A politics thread does not necessarily expose us on Facebook or anywhere massively mainstream, so I feel that such a concern can be put on the side for now.

Journalists will always find something on us if they wanted to – that is their very job. If they are looking to find supremacists, there are a variety of other websites that have more than enough taken their attention, some of which you've already named. Wizchan's 5 minutes of fame has long come and gone, and with the election over why can we not talk about a topic like any other?

There is no reason for us not to have a politics thread if we kept civil. To immediately cower in fear of anything in a political nature only means we have become far too afraid of ourselves to even express things that actual wizards really do want to talk about and share with each other.


That test is very skewed. You shouldn't use it as an indication of what you or other people actually believe.



In what way do you think the test is skewed?

Of course it is not a very comprehensive test as it is one just found casually on-line (and really a comprehensive political test would be difficult to construct regardless), but I find it handy to identify myself quickly and efficiently.

Taking the test multiple times across spans of different years, it is simply astonishing how one's own opinion might change or well, may not even change.


>Besides, those places in which you have named are in themselves still largely innately obscure.
Now I'm beginning to doubt if you are serious. Do you not realize that with the events of the 2016 election and afterwards, that both /pol/ boards are now regular players on the political playing field? It has gotten to the point where even my mom knows about 4chan /pol/ now. There are people in meat space waving around pepe flags and spouting memes at Trump rallies, pro-Trump speaker events (such as Milo), and other political events. 4chan is a regular utterance in mainstream news now. /pol/ users started the whole russian prostitute pissing "dossier" that the MSM losers picked up. Which led to even more mainstream attention.
4chan, especially /pol/, is without a doubt in the eyes of the mainstream now.

And yes, we're not seeing the Trump memes now, but we could be seeing them soon. However I do agree with you that our politics thread probably hasn't and probably won't land us on Facebook (although being mentioned on facebook is something that has already happened).


File: 1488761475422.jpg (47.5 KB, 321x450, all-seeing-eye.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Educate human kind, educate the cattle and all problems will resolve, together with faith in the one true wizard because knowledge alone is not enough to reach solution



I agree with you that especially after the election things may have changed and /pol/ has received more attention than ever, but that still doesn't necessarily mean Wizchan will become the next /pol/ or you'll be seeing Trump and Pepe everywhere.

Provocative macro images and short mean-spirited remarks is shitposting in its finest, which is against the rules. 4chan cannot control itself and must resort to talking in such manner, but wizards are different. Posting in such a fashion already warrants administrative action so I feel that excluding a topic altogether because other people elsewhere do not discuss it with respect isn't coherent.

Political discussion can be discussed civilly and with respect, and while it is true that /pol/ often brings with them a greatly obnoxious presence, it cannot be assumed that anybody that wishes to discuss politics automatically wishes to a harbor /pol/-style thread when that simply isn't the case.

Wizards have voices, and it is important to discuss and share that amongst each other much in the same way we discuss anything else here.

Again, I hold zero tolerance against /pol/posting if you will, and I am certain many other wizards feel the same way and just wish to discuss politics.

Now as far that video clip is concerned, it is absolutely possible to discuss and interpret it civilly.


Google's DeepMind supposedly employs a Go master to explain the decisions and plays chosen by AlphaGo to the team of geniuses and Go players who developed it. The robot takeover of Go is now complete, and we require oracles and priests to interpret the game god's frequently inexplicable but ultimately correct behavior. Soon this will be as effective as trying to read fate through casting yarrow stalks; there are no signs of any serious scientist or even Go players trying to slow things down and prevent the takeover so that things will be gradual enough for people to grow old and adapt to Alpha Go's playing innovations. Nobody would ever resist a robot takeover of Go, that's crazy.

The robot takeover of trucking is a near future inevitability. Once the self-driving car becomes more reliable than human drivers, the reason to employ human drivers becomes a matter of accountability; the truck driver himself is responsible for crashing his truck, while the company would be responsible for a robot truck. So when the self-driving car becomes undeniably more reliable than human drivers, it is likely that the law will be changed to require that trucking firms use self-driving trucks, incentivized by gory news articles about big rig collisions killing children. The driver will not become an onboard mechanic, loader, and emergency operator; at least not forever. Road service businesses, mobile phones, and automatic damage detection systems mean that a robot car can call for service on its own and pay less than the cost of maintaining a human operator, and the human's ability to act as a failsafe is questionable, and the costs of putting a human failsafe at risk such as insurance and damages in the event of failure are worth consideration as well. Nobody is resisting a robot takeover of trucking, and why would they? Do you want insomnia-riddled truck drivers killing people?

Embedded is a video on an AI scientist's view of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. He starts out sounding relatively reasonable, saying that AI researchers and engineers don't take the Three Laws very seriously for a number of reasons, and one of those reasons is that the laws do not entirely work in Asimov's stories themselves, and that the laws are too vague and all that sort of thing. But then he starts explaining that AI research is not interested in philosophical issues such as ethics, or in solving ethical problems prior to developing a system in which a solution to such issues becomes necessary. They're interested in AI science and engineering, and the scientific and engineering problems they face specific to the field of AI. This is very consistent with the engineers and scientists I have met in the workplace, and with the statements of many engineers and scientists who work on these issues in particular; in this matter Dr. Kaczynski's Industrial Society and Its Future is in very strong agreement with most of its highly educated and informed critics such as Dr. Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy (read Joy's essay "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us," I think Wired Magazine might have paywalled their version but it should still be hosted elsewhere). Kurzweil, Kaczynski and Joy all disagree with each other on most points, so the fact that they agree on this one should be alarming.

You are aware of the Trolley Problem, right? It's pretty common for students and youngsters to deride the Trolley Problem as an example of ethical hypotheticals becoming divorced from anything practical. Who would ever be standing at a lever like that and have to make a decision in such an on-off way with such immediacy?

The Trolley Problem is intensely practical.
Engineers are not equipped to solve the Trolley Problem. Philosophers who study ethics have not solved ethics, including solving the Trolley Problem. Nobody has solved the Trolley Problem, nobody is going to solve the Trolley Problem, but we have managed to push technology to the point where the Trolley Problem requires a clear solution.


It's just not a good test, the questions aren't good and it tends to put more people on the libertarian left more than it should. I think there was another test that did a better job of assessing these things. Another site that does a surprisingly good job is www.isidewith.com



I'll be sure to add www.isidewith.com on the next thread as an alternative, thank you.


>Where do you stand politically and why?

far right and very nationalist.

>Where do you recieve your news? Do you trust them?

I don't read it

>>How do you currently feel about your country on a political level? Should there be change, if any?

I am very happy with Trump so far


1. National Socialist.

It should be obvious.

America and Britain are increasingly becoming filled with Communist SJW useful idiots of the Jew thus a necessary counter reaction must rise up in opposition to this unless people such as myself want to live in an Orwellian Jew ruled nightmare (we don't) hence our reaction/response.

2. I don't trust anyone. I try and read everything and just filter through the Jew bullshit to glean out whatever nugget of truth there may be.

3. Turner Diaries style white revolution needs to happen along with it's day of the rope.

Traitors ie Communist SJW's need to be hanged and Jews need to be lined up against a wall and shot to put it bluntly.


File: 1488774165363.png (17.28 KB, 480x400, chart.png) ImgOps iqdb

>Where do you stand politically and why?
I stop browsing /pol/ for a few months and now I am leaning slightly to the left, but just as authoritarian as in the last test, or maybe the questions have been changed a little. Same position as Robert Mugabe, disgusting.

>Where do you recieve your news? Do you trust them?

I have stopped reading/watching news in general, I can't change shit so why bother? I can't avoid the local radio though so it is hard not to keep up with what is happening (parents love it).

>How do you currently feel about your country on a political level? Should there be change, if any?

The guys at the top are robbing banks all the time because the country has run dry on money, that is how leftards got power in my country after all.
The only change I was rooting to happen was Trump winning US elections since the people around here are cattle that looks up to the US, the right wing chords have been played and the media is shaming him here because they know change starts the hardest in the first world (human nature and all that crap).
Cries for human rights coming from a loud minority does not fucking stop and the people are getting pissed at the activists sucking druglord cock. Prisons are tearing apart with everyone killing each other there, the people are fucking loving it all, meanwhile the media is trying to find ways to shame such acts, they are losing credit rather fast though.


File: 1488774326444.jpg (49.95 KB, 468x410, SAT racial dif..JPG) ImgOps iqdb

I'm an ethnic nationalist, as in I recognize that the races perform differently physically and mentally due to biological evolution and it is our moral duty to make sure the superior and civilized races of the world succeed. Europeans and East-Asians must bar negroes and all other undesirables from their societies and civilizations to progress the development of mankind. Once we secure our borders and societies, it is time to administer birth control to the inferior races of the world and therefore limiting their abilities to reproduce and thus lowering the amount of suffering produced by mankind.



I am curious, but why might you think these "SJW"'s feel as strongly as they are about their opinions?

Surely, it cannot be just the work or propaganda of some group alone – contrary to popular belief, people follow some line of thought and are not entirely sheep, so to say, for otherwise what differenciates shepards as false sheep themselves? Nonethless, I ask: what drives these "SJW"'s, in your own words?

I ask this not as neither communist or national socialist, but as a wizard curious of how people reach their political inclination. Everyone has read Orwelle's 1984, so I don't think even these "SJW"s want something like that either. In fact, I have seen it from both sides calling each other the very same insults.

As far as I respect your own stance, I must remind you to refrain some such provacative terminology as free use of "Jew" without proper connection or a "Day of the Rope". I am not saying you are not allowed to believe that, but the others might not be as receptive to open thought with such colourful wording.


>The guys at the top are robbing banks all the time because the country has run dry on money, that is how leftards got power in my country after all.

That is interesting, tell me more. Although, I would prefer not to have the other side insulted so blatantly, for what fault is greater than of their own doing? Needless to say, simply referring them as "the left" might suffice. But do go on.


I have heard of this plenty of times, but I myself have never given it any real personal though.

But from a nationalistic perspective, why cleanse a race entirely when every able-bodied person can be of use? Why bar others from reproducing if they can contribute to the state?

I ask this personally to hear it from your own perspective, as while I have examined source documents, it always fascinates me to understand other people's thinking, at least in terms of how to construct a more ideal efficient form of governance.


File: 1488777307698.jpg (48.89 KB, 600x400, Communism Orwell 1984.jpg) ImgOps iqdb


>why might you think these "SJW"'s feel as strongly as they are about their opinions?

Like the majority of white people their hearts are in the right place in that they want to create a better world.

The problem is that the Jews have sold them on a feel good lie about how to bring that about.

This is how the phrase: "Christianity/Communism sounds good (on it's surface) but only WORKS on paper" came into being.

Every Communist/SJW/Christian believes that their particular Jew brotherhood scam will go according to plan and acheive utopia should those that think like them just gain control of the government.

Well what we ended up with during Christian control was endless fratricidal wars of whites killing whites en masse and SJW tier hysteria that saw innocent succubi burnt as witches and what we ended up with under Jew Communism is Jews and depraved white mass murdering an estimated total of 100 million people most of whom were very likely majority white (this being the estimated total of ALL mass murder under communist rule added up past and present).

Like a drug addict "chasing their first high" Christians/Communists ignore the destruction/deadliness and mass misery their Jew ideologies bring about each deluding/convincing themselves that:

"You guys just don't get it! The REAL version of my utopia promising Jew bullshit just hasn't been inacted properly YET but once it is by the PROPER leader whoa boy! Its gonna work!! BIGTIME!!!"

>Surely, it cannot be just the work or propaganda of some group alone – contrary to popular belief, people follow some line of thought and are not entirely sheep, so to say, for otherwise what differenciates shepards as false sheep themselves? Nonethless, I ask: what drives these "SJW"'s, in your own words?

It is the work of the Jews and their shabbos goyim as part of the ongoing de-nazification process they put the Germans through after the unfortunate outcome of the second world war.

Jews didn't stop at making Germans feel bad and blood libelled for an imaginary holocaust but rather carefully managed their propaganda to create white guilt and in a way make ALL whites feel they are responsible for the holohoax.

Uri Bezmenov's videos which can be found all over youtube have this ex KGB agent going into a great amount of detail explaining how America and any nation gets subverted by Communist Jewry. He even mentions the rise of so called Social Justice (Warriors) like 30-40 years before it arose like a cancer over the psyche of America's young people.

Basically how it is done is via the old Communist, Frankfurt Jew School phrase about "the long march through the institutions". Bezmenov points out it takes 15 years to brainwash a single generation of American youth towards Communism which is also a demoralization process. Demoralization means from this perspective that the individual can no longer properly respond to true information anymore. The Jewish or shabbos goyim educator has so brainwashed the youth/s in question that they no longer know how to properly respond to truthful information.

In other words if you could take a handful of SJW's in a time machine with you to WWII era Germany and prove to them beyond a shadow of a doubt that the holocaust is a lie that did not happen they wouldn't know how to respond to that realization/revelation.

In a normal person who does not go through the soviet demoralization process in our public edJEWcation system but who was say home schooled by their parents and taught to think critically and to hear out both sides before making a judgement call…that person filled in a society of lies such as this might believe the holocaust narrative since it is so pervasive but not having been demoralized if you took them in the time machine and proved to them the holocaust was a fraud they'd react like a normal person would to this revelation by becoming very angry at having been lied to right before they become an avowed National Socialist or maybe just a stronger American patriot than they already were but this time one that is firmly opposed and awake to Jewry and it's many lies.

Anyway something the Jews do with their propaganda movies to trick people into coming over to their side of an argument/idea is they will structure an anti white propaganda film to have one or more versions of what they consider to be a "good white" and naturally when watching movies/shows people want to most identify themselves with the perceived hero/good guy character and so gravitate to the Jew's hero while disdaining the supposed "bad whites" and what makes this propaganda technique so very powerful is whites don't realize they are being led to feeling a certain way and so mistakenly believe that the idea they came to is their own rather than some Jew psychology expert simply manipulating them on a path that is self destructive to them.

A good example of this propaganda in action is the disgusting Jew anti white movie Higher Learning. We're led to believe all the white skinhead characters are "bad whites" meanwhile all the nigger and Jew characters are saints…but not to worry…there's at least one long haired white guy who is the "good white" stand in character we can momentarily cheer for who assures the nigger character played by Omar Epps that: "I'm not one of those fuckin racists duuude!" as he implores the nigger to keep being friends with him to which after not much more pleading the nigger acquiesces to the kind gesture from the lone non racist cracker.

Anyway I've heard that Schindler's List is another good example of this propaganda in action whereby the Jews train us whites to want to be good little "Schindlers".

>I ask this not as neither communist or national socialist, but as a wizard curious of how people reach their political inclination. Everyone has read Orwelle's 1984, so I don't think even these "SJW"s want something like that either. In fact, I have seen it from both sides calling each other the very same insults.

I think I've answered this for you in my reply above.

Christians/Communists always think that only the best will arise from their Jew brotherhood scam attaining power but said scams only ever produce the worst for whites.


File: 1488777753244.jpeg (140.59 KB, 1242x1088, image.jpeg) ImgOps iqdb

>where do you stand politically?
I don't think my political compass results are completely accurate. I consider myself to be libertarian, pro-white, anti-globalism and anti-multiculturalism. Different people should stay with their own kind. Europe for Europeans, Africa for Africans. Obviously this doesn't work in all countries do to historical conditions.

>where do you get your news?

I read and watch a lot of things, and am sceptical of most people. I tend to get a lot of my info through the White House YouTube channel for presidential happenings and just read around for the rest.

>how do you feel about your country on a political level?

If Trump fulfills most of his promises I'll be pleased. Current state of politics is getting annoying with constant screeching about Russia and just Trump in general, despite me liking the guy.


End to the two party system, drain the swamp for real



Now that all seems rather quite wild to believe, but I have a hard time believing that it is still the work of one particular group behind everything that is wrong.

Innocently I must ask, but why the Jews in particular? For what motivation would they have towards being so "anti-white" when a good lot of them identify simultaneously as "white" themselves? Does not what benefit the good of common man benefit the Jew – and all people – accordingly?

Pardon my skepticism, but has not it ever occurred to you that it just seems too easy to scapegoat a group of people rather than say, seeing more as a series of complex unrelated events compounding upon itself into larger chains of conflicting thoughts?


I am aware of your explicit dissatisfaction, but please be mindful of the respectful intention behind this thread, and the language behind expressing such emotions.

Again I am not saying you cannot hold such beliefs, but the spirit of these discussion threads generally frowns upon short, uninsightful remarks that may provoke others into similarly responding inappropriately.

Elaborating upon your frustration might prove to be valuable however, and I encourage that.


There is no way this thread could possibly remain civil.

This is my political opinion.



I still remain confident that given enough guidance and time, we can further achieve consistently civil discussion.

As it is, I actually expected much, much worse. I really must thank and give high praise to the mods for their superb judgement calls and the privilege of allowing a Politics Thread in the first place.

I assure you, that this has all been very interesting to read as well, and no doubt remains something unique to wizchan in that it is fresh political discussion that has not devolved itself to absurdity.

We are hearing fellow wizards speaking their mind out loud with their own voice, and sharing their thoughts without hasty aggression in the greatly sensitive matters of politics. Is that not what Wizchan is all about – the exchange of discussion between your good wizard.


File: 1488780710578.png (83.93 KB, 1600x1066, Come and Take It.png) ImgOps iqdb

Realistically I'm a Minarchic Liberal who advocates for a night watchman state. In an ideal world, it'd be true Stateless Voluntarism but people aren't capable of it I suspect. In that ideal world I'd advocate for the obsolescence of the state in favour of sovereign individuals. If organisation is required, it would be voluntary and small scale, small town level would be as big as it got, within cities it would be suburban government and their powers would be like the council of elders in the past. They would resolve disputes and represent the community when meeting with other communities but that would be it. The illegitimate extortion of funds from people under threat of death or imprisonment is not among their powers.

Why do I lean this way? Because I don't want people coming to me and demanding that I do things their way, or that I'm not allowed something because it hurts their feels, or that I contribute to the society whose contract I had no choice in signing. I don't care if you want to save the world from the racists or from other races, you can do it on your own power. I don't need some faceless authority telling me what I can and can't do, what is and is not my right. Freedoms are not granted, they can only be taken away, for in the lack of authority, one has agency to do whatever he wishes. There is no barrier to picking up a gun and calling it yours, it's disgusting that the US considers their right to arms a right due to the constitution. The Constitution is actually a leash for government restricting IT from taking your rights away. The Constitution grants no rights in and of itself. So even the great documents of freedom exist purely to restrict the ability of others to enforce their will over you. Why then bother with central government at all?

People like to say about how the corporations would take over and enslave everyone, but if there was no state to stop that, there is also no state to stop you from getting a mob, kicking in their front door and shooting the shit out of all of them for trying to enslave you. In reality though I suspect that most would just form their own little communities as people did prior to a powerful central authority existing. The various Central Asian peoples had a very decentralised method of rule, as did even Feudalism when it got big enough that villages and their manors were reliant on each other so had to work together, and then pre-Feudal society in various parts of the world again often lacked the same statism that we have now due to the mere difficulty of enforcing that will on every person in the state. These places functioned without a state. I don't see how with more technology allowing smaller regions and groups of people down to individuals to interact on a larger scale, we somehow need more state?

If you were an ethnic nationalist then you would let them have their own nations, not wipe them out. You'd also despise the colonisation of different parts of the world by Europe as it did displace a lot of local ethnicities who by the logic of an Ethnic Nationalist perspective had the right to their homeland.

What you want is White/East Asiatic Supremacy, not Ethnic Nationalism.

Communism wasn't an anti-white thing. It was just retardation. Read about Central Asia before and after Russian occupation. Before the Russians, they lived the way they always had, they roamed the steppes with their sheep and goats and the occasional head of cattle depending on the clan. They would lay in the grass all day and keep an eye on these herds, helping the animals to birth their young if necessary (often is with sheep and cattle) and shearing the sheep. When winter came closer, some pasture would be stored as feed for the winter. They did their own thing, they weren't wealthy but they were content. Then Communism came along and applied Western notions of value to non-western economies. They determined that a lot of these poor nomadic pastoralists were bourgeois and redistributed their herds. This led to mass starvation across the region, not helped by the new jobs that would buy the food they needed being almost exclusively Russian-filled and in the 90% Russian cities that were built while the locals were forced to barely scape by at best in the run down villages.

The Communists were pretty indiscriminate in their retarded ways of killing people.


Communism would work great with our current technology.


>People like to say about how the corporations would take over and enslave everyone, but if there was no state to stop that, there is also no state to stop you from getting a mob, kicking in their front door and shooting the shit out of all of them for trying to enslave you
In the absence of other sovereignty the corporation or other power structures become de facto sovereigns in their own right. At that point it will become practically the same as state on individual violence that has occurred throughout time. Those that have been enslaved by private interests never have the real upper hand in the situation. It is rarely an option to just go kick down their doors and kill them. Also because human power structures and groups tend to evolve along the same lines they have in the past there is also little reason to believe that the abolishment of the state would be a tenable solution for any good length of time. This is especially true when one considers the fact that such evolution of governing systems seems related to population density, I am not convinced that at modern population numbers that it is even possible to resort to feudalistic or more primitive governmental structures without some sort of major drop in population. Finally I wish to state that the state is needed not only for protection against outside forces, but to provide a power structure from within which a higher standard of living can be granted because of the relative power of the state. This is why the state regulates slavery, by it's overwhelming power it can forbid something that would otherwise likely impact all of our lives for the worse without much benefits to the whole. As an ideal the state (or soverign power by any other name) is supposed to halt these races to the bottom for the good of everyone under their charge.



I don't really care much about the world so I don't really give a shit about the Frankfurt school or anything of the sort, but based on primary sources most of your points on history are incorrect. The "endless fratricidal wars of whites killing whites" began with the Bronze Age Collapse and, judging by Eastern Europe, has not ended since; the only reason anyone would believe that white should not kill white is because one identifies with all whites as they had been united in Christendom the way black Americans identify with all other blacks only by blackness as they had been united in slavery, no black African believes that there is a natural unity between Hutu and Tutsi and no east Asian actually believes that all Asians are really one single horde and it is dishonest in the extreme to argue that all Irishmen, Germans and Slavs are one race and that strife between them was somehow off limits or was comparatively tame and sedate before Christianity when Julius Caesar massacred upwards of 66% of the Helvetii, that is like the Minbari from Babylon 5, a culture of warriors who never war amongst themselves, it doesn't make sense. If you were to actually identify whites by Aryan descent you would call the wars between the Persians and the Greeks a tragedy, despise the Vikings and the Teutonic Volkswanderung for their campaigns of mass enslavement, or mourn the endless pointless civil wars of Rome. The Christian emperors put an end to the witch hunts of Rome, which prechristian Roman chroniclers themselves estimate had killed many thousands of magic practitioners and which had placed even Apuleius on trial for his life, in an era when Rome's witchcraft trials had cooled down. The witch hunts only began at large scale again when the explicitly national religious organizations of the Early Modern Era wrested power from the priesthood and deposited it under the crown. This even happened in Catholic countries, at the Concordat of Liege Emperor Charles V placed sorcery tribunals under purely secular and irrelgious authorities. Prior to the Renaissance and the return of Roman cultural norms (such as witchcraft trials) the churches had taught that witchcraft was a fiction, and fear of witches a sign of paganism; here is the text of a Fifth Century document on the matter:
>16. A Christian who believes that there is such a thing in the world as a vampires that is to say, a witch, is to be anathematized-anyone who puts a living soul under such a reputation; and he must not be received again into the Church before he has undone by his own word the crime that he has committed, and so does penance with all diligence.
The Patrician conversion of Ireland I consider one of the finest examples of civilized behavior between cultures in conflict; the priests talked the Irish into abandoning the slave trade that their economy relied upon, through demonstrating kindness, common decency, common sense, and benevolence. Without Christianity it is impossible for me to imagine any way to talk the Irish out of their raiding, reaving, and enslaving economy and society, and so it is impossible for me to imagine any state between the Irish and the rest of the white nations except for war, or grisly subjugation in the manner of the Helvetii. Maybe the Irish would have been better off to keep their slave raids running, just as the Scandinavian economy collapsed when Christianity ended the Viking slave raids and slave trade, but just like the Vikings they would have prospered at the expense of the civil Europa you seem to value, like a parasite benefitting while the host is enfeebled. The Irish conversion was distinguished by its civility, both on the part of the missionaries and on the part of the Irish willing to receive them. Other conversions, such as Charlemagne's subjugation of the Saxons, were distinctly less civilized. Charlemagne was brutal to an extent that is not often appreciated.

This is Charlemagne's Capitulary for Saxony:
>6. If any one deceived by the devil shall have believed, after the manner of the pagans, that any man or succubus is a witch and eats men, and on this account shall have burned the person, or shall have given the person's flesh to others to eat, or shall have eaten it himself, let him be punished by a capital sentence.
There is a very long list of offenses against Christianity listed there, and most of them are punished by death, and one of the pagan traits punishable by death is burning witches.

The bishops considered the Malleus Maleficarum (written in the Renaissance) to be the work of a deranged mind; the Bishop of Innsbruck had its author exiled from his city.

All of this ended as the Wizard World Order fell from power and the churches nationalized and grew closer to the people. It was white people who hated witches, just as they had in the age of Rome and its witch trials, just as the Saxons and the Teutons had strangled witches and thrown them in bogs–or, according to Charlemagne, burned them– and just as the Puritans and Prussians would resume their ancestors habits once the churches were no longer presenting an obstacle.


My problem with with socialism/communism is that the living standard of an average person is not that different from a poor person living in a first world country.

In both them you are:
>living in a small apartment with only your bare necessities provided.

The only difference is there is no rich people exploiting you but what is the point if your living standards isn't going to change?


I'm a brand of politics that doesn't have a name yet.
Generally, unborn people have rights, and if you're birthing people into poverty, you are committing assault on them.

I'm extremely keen on personal liberty and freedom from tyranny, whether corporate or governmental. Rights, which would include the right to not suffer, for which a state would have to support those who could not help themselves. There's a careful balance between helping people and turning them dependent, and I think that can be overturned by reproductive rights. You do not have the right to impinge on an unborn person. IE; if you are dependent on state aid, you do not reproduce.
Fair enough?
But in out current climate, this would be immediately labelled as eugenics and wouldn't get anywhere, even if it's the best solution for everyone that minimises human suffering. A long term policy that makes it so only those that wish to reproduce have to work, peacefully creating an entire society where voluntary labour is the predominant attitude.
Crime is obsoleted completely.

I don't care so much about what the state structure is like, so long as it is representational. It MUST be responsible to the people it has power over.
The long list of awful governments all share that one factor: Most people had very little option but to comply, no matter what was doled out by the power structure to them.


What are you talking about? Killing has always worked as a last resort if the oppressor is so socially inept they fail to even account for the basic nutrition and livelihood of the oppressed.

Normal french people had absolutely no problem guillotining tens of thousands of nobles, minor aristocrats, priests, clerics and even the king himself.

Even a civilized person is ready to kill after he is denied a warm meal for a few days. Decades of civilization will shed away in a matter of hours given the right circumstances, and if those in dire need are still not looked after, they will massacre those who had the opportunity to help them but did not.


If generally speaking unborn people have rights, then abortion is straight-up murder. You may be able to justify it as euthanasia or mercy killing in certain cases, but there's no getting around the squeamish fact of the matter.


>Killing has always worked as a last resort if the oppressor is so socially inept they fail to even account for the basic nutrition and livelihood of the oppressed.
That may be true, but I believed we were talking about simple enslavement in this example. The French Revolution was precipitated out of a particularly egregious failure of the state, there are many many more situations where in revolution did not occur even against unjust hegemonic entities. The slaves in America for one, had only a handful of minor rebellions in hundreds of years of slavery, often when slaves actually outnumbered those who held their leash. The same is true of most slaves in many civilizations through history. Clearly these people were not so ill treated so as to cause them to use that last resort, but I doubt if you or I would wish to be in those conditions. This is what worries me.

Also the idea that corporations can be fought the same way as the aristocracy is in my view questionable. Corporate governance can be incredibly decentralized, and we even have ways of making completely autonomous corporations these days. This is all under the current state regulations which strictly define how corporations can operate, with those constraints removed it is entirely possible that corporations could morph into even more exotic forms. Combine this with lack of greater power structures it is entirely likely that corporations would fill the power vacuum that the state leaves behind. A corporation and it's human, machine, and capital resources could very likely become as powerful as a state actor, something that is not easily resisted by smaller groups. This combined with the aforementioned fact that rebellions are a rarity through history leads me to believe that we desperately need to empower and provide for a sovereign entity such as the state in order to protect our desired way of life. Though I admit most real world states are far from this ideal, I cannot see how removing such power entirely is the answer.



I agree with this, it's been a question bugging me for a while towards understanding. The very nature of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" confuses me, because how and who exactly determines the extent of one's "ability", and to what extent can one justify a "need"?

It would seem fundamentally all people are physically capable of being farmers living in extremely bare-bones homes so why wouldn't that be the case for the majority of the population? It just doesn't sound appealing for the common man, and yet those vouching insist that things will somehow get better not worse if everything changed.

It is not even a need to have access to internet or anything other than the minimal amount of food needed to survive, so right from that quote, I have already gotten extremely skeptical despite trying to keep an open mind. I would absolutely hate to lose internet, and I would despise forced farm work even more as I haven't really proven myself the ability to do anything more.

What is it about socialism/communism that attracts the weakest or most oppressed of society thinking they will not be equally weaker or more oppressed in such political climate?



I kind of sympathize with his train of thought regarding abortion, but instead of simple abortion for the sake of it, certain conditions must be held such as:

(a) The baby critically threatens the mother's health.

(b) The family will not be able to sustain or properly develop a good and health upbringing of a child (I.E. the parents are incredibly poor and did not even expect a baby, or the parents have a history of abuse, constant criminal problems with the law, etc., basically the lowest dregs of society).

True, it does seem at a glance that this is wholly against the fundamental rights of people, but if the absolute lowest of the low of people who consistently create violent generations of offspring are known to be detrimental to society, then what point is fundamental rights if other people only use it to cause more suffering and more trouble for those wanting a peace?

The way I have seen it, is that being born is largely only worth it if one stumbles into stable, loving, and hardworking families that greatly increases the possibility of one to reach their full potential someday.

Born into abusive, jobless, obese alcoholics that wouldn't bother even taking care of you, but just using you to receive money from the government? Better not to have been born at all.

Yes, this would mean that the criteria for "who shouldn't be and who should" would have to be extensively examined, and all sorts of methodology would be in place to ensure that the lowest of the low who actually intend on contributing back and treats their children with respect are not affected. But as it is many, many, families are systematically dysfunctional to the ignorance of society and yet none really give a damn, as they have the silent freedom to permanently scar children and cause preventative havoc later on with their own lives.

At the same time, I must confess that this would mean omitting myself from existence, but in all honesty as someone having attempted the act of self-dismissal many times over to no success, I wouldn't mind that one bit. Society would have truly been better without me.

Again, this is just abortion for the measured benefit of society, and in many ways for the parents themselves (as some would prefer being childless but had gotten pregnant somehow anyways). This is not direct and unrestrained eugenics on people one doesn't like, which would be a different thing altogether that I do not support. There is persistent belief by the normal that "all life is inherently sacred and worth living" when I disagree and say, "to the extent of those capable of enabling a life worth living". Some lives are best unlived before they ever start.

Side note: I am aware child control and protective services exist, and they would still exist, but instead of as a solely reactionary force, there would also be in addition a preventative force that minimalizes their need and helps them better make use of their fund and support system. Orphaned children are simply not magically granted good childhoods when they've already been given such a poor luck of the draw from being born in greatly unfortunate circumstances.

In a nutshell, yes, I do think it is possible to be too poor to have baby. It is also possible to be too poor to have a baby and expect a good childhood and citizen out of it, when we now have the technological means of being capable of consistently raising the best lives possible per child.

I do not know what to call or exactly classify all of this either.


Life is the punishment, not death.


I'm thinking about creating a new political party. We will support abortion, death penalty and euthanasia.

I've had enough of normo politics. It is time for us wizards to take over. Fuck both left and right, liberals and authoritarians. Fuck the normalcattle.


*demiurge laughter in the distance*


File: 1488820152301.png (770.69 KB, 898x1251, average fundamental wizlam….png) ImgOps iqdb


Here here, it is time for us to organize and claim Wizrael once and for all. We are wizards, and we cannot be ignored!


You can abort because it's self defense.
If you can shoot someone that is on your property without your permission and can't abort someone that is INSIDE YOU without your permission, something is wrong.


You DESERVE to have a right to die! Nobody asked you if you want to have a life, you were forced to have it anyway! If you think life is a gift, then you are a really sad person! Shame!



That would be fine if babies spontanously develop out of nowhere, but sadly the act of procreation in itself is a kind of bodily consent that the change of children has been in mind, even if it was done recreationally without protection.

No succubi having sex does not know that children come from bumping uglies, and while I am for abortion and hold pre-dominantly anti-natalist beliefs, free abortion for the sake of it cannot be justified if at least one parental member can support a good childhood and if the mother's health isn't in critical condition from the pregnancy.

This is speaking politically of course, from the government's perspective and for the benefit of its citizens. A healthy citizen can actually find work and pay taxes towards NEETS while keeping the peace, instead of not working and actively causing trouble/crime unlike someone just at home.


Well that's just a potential ideological explanation for the policy. I'm also someone who thinks we should abandon ideology completely, as it just gets in the way.
Just do whatever is effective, and doesn't violate people's rights.
Biologically speaking, the unborn don't have rights, but when they are born they do.
So killing them before they have rights works just fine, but doing something to them that affects them after they're born… eh fuck it. I said we should abandon ideology, so let's just be a hypocrite because it's effective.


And there goes Wizchan as a safehaven from political discussion.

I'll contribute to thread by saying that if you take the political compass test seriously then you are likely an idiot knows nothing about politics. It makes those Myers–Brigg tests seem legitimate in comparison.



You must understand that the test only introduces people's foot to the door of politics and was not meant to ever been taken seriously, as while not everybody has been classically trained in politics, no doubt most people have a political leaning one way or another.

Speaking of which, was there something on your mind in particular that you had wanted to discuss on a more serious note?

I myself may very well be an idiot when it comes to politics, but instead of further digesting paper after paper of academic study, why not see things in plainer, simpler terms laymen wizard can comprehend? That is one leading intention of mine behind the purpose of this thread.


>>Where do you stand politically and why?
Classical liberal. I like both the freedoms and responsibilities that allow humans to develop properly as individuals, without their abusive parents Mommy Communism and Daddy Fascist Theocracy leading them astray. I believe more in the identity of the Western citizen than national identity. I'm not morally utilitarian or conclusion-first; I'd have no problem at all with seeing normalfag civilization collapse if they can't get their shit together. It's a fact that the world runs on resentment anyway, so it's hard to feel politically motivated. I'm open to basic income, welfare for retards like us or at least euthanasia.

>Where do you recieve your news? Do you trust them?

YouTube and Twitter, I guess? It's hard to miss or distrust, compared to mainstream media at least.

>How do you currently feel about your country on a political level? Should there be change, if any?

I don't care about my country. Haven't been following the situation for years now, honestly. But aside from the above-mentioned desires, we don't have it too bad, could be worse…better more like, since I'd like to see it burn, but whatever. We have no SJWs or rapefugees, for one. Gypsies tend to be an issue, though. Plus, there's the European air of citizens existing for the government and not the other way around, with people thinking that's just normal.


There's not rule explicitly against the occasional political thread, is there? As long as we don't have /pol/ and SJW cancer all over the boards I'll be happy



I concur. So far so good, there have been minimal disruptive posting and mods have been fantastic.

It is incredible to see wizards of all sides come together, and it is my hope that in time we may divulge on more intricate subjects.


I only support absolute dictatorship with myself as the dictator.
As absolute dictator I'd probably let the people run a free market economy that I'd interfere with whenever I felt like it. I'd probably outlaw religion and replace it with worship of me only. Maybe I'd make all people under a certain IQ slaves that can also be bought and sold on the free market, I'd probably make some group of people slaves for fun. I'd also make video game and anime makers kings which would be highly funded.


>muh rules

There is no rule against faggotry but that doesn't make it okay to act like a faggot. And just as there is no rule against posting political threads there is no rule against me protesting them. Political discussion is pervasive in normie society and on every other chan to the extent that you can't ignore it without completely shutting yourself off from the world. I would at least like to be able to avoid it here.

I want to support free speech but people keep ruining it for me.


You know, I'm gonna say the same thing to you, that I say to the people pissed off about the fap thread.




>I would at least like to be able to avoid it here. I want to support free speech but people keep ruining it for me.

I highly suggest you simply hide and ignore the thread then. Nobody is forcing you to read or post here, and frankly I have personally found this thread extremely fulfilling. I am sure others feel that way as well.


Why do you assume that everyone uses cookies.

You really must be new to politics if discussion of it gives you a sense of fulfillment. It's on par with religion/atheism discussion with what you can take away from it, especially talk of ideology, labels and stances. Discuss the economy and the markets if you want political discussion that might actually be worth getting into.



>Why do you assume that everyone uses cookies.

The feature is there, intentionally ignoring it is on you.

>You really must be new to politics if discussion of it gives you a sense of fulfillment.

Learning, sharing, and exchanging ideas with other wizards fascinates me, I don't know why. Again, I could study source material, books, commentary, and other news but it feels nowhere near as alive and personal as it is talking about things with people. That is why I ask, and that is why I am learning.

Politics in a void is boring. Politics with people is what makes politics alive and so relevant.

>It's on par with religion/atheism discussion with what you can take away from it, especially talk of ideology, labels and stances. Discuss the economy and the markets if you want political discussion that might actually be worth getting into.

I disagree, since while the economical side of politics is absolutely important, it is not all of politics. Social issues and all manners of events are there and make lasting impacts.

Unless of course, there is a topic pertaining to the economic platforms you had wanted to discuss. I am all ears because it would be coming from you, not a book or biased source where I already have an idea what they're going to say and how they say it.


>Why do you assume that everyone uses cookies.
Because everyone does. Having run a website, I can say with some level of certainty, that 99% of internet users use cookies, or are at least willing to turn cookies on, for websites that they regularly visit, that require cookies.

The site owner has given you a pathway to hide things that you don't like. You have chosen to ignore it, and you have also chosen to not use 3rd party addons (like ublock) that allow you to personally control what you see and do not see. You have chosen not to view wizchan on a dedicated browser, specifically for this site, that you never go anywhere else on (that accepts cookies). I have 0 sympathy for you in this. I don't like politics either, and I'm not planning on posting regularly in this thread, but the concept is a good one. Without a political thread, people will derail, and flood. With a political thread, the issue will be contained.


File: 1488850650045.jpg (278.73 KB, 1600x1200, 650988d5a9fbdb364af5d40cbd….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

i think all i will use this thread for is news regarding basic income. it's the only subjects that normalfags talk about i have an interest in as a neet who wishes for his neetlife to continue forever. i subscribed to a newsletter and they email me shit every month so i don't even have to visit news sites thankfully


The economist behind Universal Basic Income: Give all citizens UBI to help combat a 'neofascist wave of populism'

>In the last few years there has been a deluge of conversions among economists, commentators, and politicians — on the right and the left

>We are in an era of chronic insecurity and growing inequality. We need to have new mechanisms for income distribution

>The argument that basic income is unaffordable is quite easily refutable

>In every industrialised country, we currently apply means-tested benefits. That means you’re targeting the poor

>The old system has broken. Wages will continue to decline. Insecurity will continue to grow. That is a recipe for economic instability


File: 1488851025517.jpg (26.55 KB, 480x424, a3251194a4ad3ff6146d9bcf0b….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

After a learned about the mechanics of darwinism and sexual selection in apes(we), alongside with nihilism and that everything is ultimately meaningless, I switched from libertarianism/paleoconservative to antinatalism, because there are no morals that can justify human existence, and the only way humans distinguish themselves from other animals is the capability to use reason and be moral, and since we are derived from sin and we must sin to survive, which implies the suffering of other beings with enough complex nerves to be able to feel pain or painful emotional states(discomfort, distress, guilt, shame, irritation, boredom, anxiety, stress, fear, grief, sadness, and loneliness), life is ultimately a cognitive dissonance, there is no way to evaluate life as something good in terms of being moral and logical without lying to yourself, without denying it.

There is also an unequality between in pleasure and pain, which is the main drive for apes like us, or better to say, what justifies life for most people, because if you apply morality and reason, life cannot be justified, but you can still rely on pleasure vs pain, but this doesn't apply as well, because there is an asymmetry between in pain and pleasure.

Here comes an equation related to the chart:

Quadrant (1) must be negative, because it is bad, and quadrants
(2) and (3) must be positive because they are good. (I assume that
(3) must be as good as (1) is bad. That is, if (1) = −n, then (3) = +n).
Since (4) is not bad (and not good either), it should be neither positive
nor negative but rather neutral, making (4) = 0.

B is preferable to A, because presence of pain (1) has more negative value than the presence of pleasure (3), if people could choose to have 1 hour of pain just for later to have 1 hour of pleasure in the same intensity, then people would rather not feel the pain and remain in a neutral state. Having the equation resulting in a negative value, A ends up as having more negative value than B, giving another logical reason aside of the right to choose that life(impossibility, life is "imposed") is apriori, for us, a harm.


Thanks for the lecture but I will still complain about things instead of ignoring them.

Here is a pro-tip. Don't study politics, study history. It will suddenly become a lot more interesting. Debating the best spot on an X-Y graph will make you stupid. I shouldn't even have told you to get into economic politics, I should have just told you to study economics. And I'm telling you that so you can argue over meme-capitalism and communism 4.0, but so you can understand how the decisions and strategies of big businesses and banks effect and influence the world. Having a solid grasp on history and economics and how they relate to the modern world will give you a vastly better understanding of how the world works then your average joe who argues ideology all day.


The problem with UBI is it's just a bandaid on the festering sores of capitalism. It solves no problems and if we give it no strings attached to norms they will continue to perpetuate their own problems.


File: 1488852061182.jpg (13.89 KB, 480x424, chart.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

i disagree with your chart

3 is not positive, it's neutral

presence of pain can equal bad, sure, but the absense of it shouldn't equal good

good is the oppsosite of bad, but the opposite of the "presence of pain" is not the "absence of pain"

there is no opposite of pain that i can think of. pleasure is not the opposite, either, both are distinctly different

the absence of pain is the absence of something bad, but this isn't necessarily good, it's more accurate to call it neutral

for that chart to make sense, you would have to force yourself into accepting pain and pleasure as opposites, but doing so would make 4 equal to bad in the same way you think 3 is equal to good

both are wrong i feel, and pic related is how i correct it. the choice between A and B becomes a choice between guaranteed neutral/nothing/nonexistence, and a potential "good" or "bad", but these aren't good values for pain and pleasure i feel


>The problem with UBI is it's just a bandaid on the festering sores of capitalism.
what is that supposed to mean

>It solves no problems

if it were universal, since it's given to all, $10,000 annually would benefit someone poor more than a millionaire, it helps solves the "inequality" between rich and poor. but i don't care about defending it or trying to explain it, all i want is free money. me trying to convince you it's a good thing is pointless. it may very well be a bad thing to you, so i'm not even going to bother

>if we give it no strings attached to norms they will continue to perpetuate their own problems.

like what? who cares what normalfags do


>what is that supposed to mean
That the injustices in the current system are endemic to that system. UBI treats the symptoms but not the disease. At best UBI alleviates the worst problems and injustices inherent in a system of unbridled consumption and expected eternal exponential growth, however it is only a temporary solution, a stopgap measure.

>like what? who cares what normalfags do

Like breed and put more and more pressure on the system. You should care considering that this system you propose is predicated on normalfags and their ability to continue to pay into said system which ultimately relies on both continuous economic growth, and stasis in the standard of living and availability of resources.

>I just want free money

That's fine, but that doesn't mean the idea is flawless which is what I was pointing out. I was not attacking your personal position, but the concept.


> If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

I can't even reply to this to be honest. It's not like countries don't do both already, and it's not like corporations don't innovate new technologies, bring in taxes, and drive the economy. Supporting both corporations and the people is probably what will happen, and limits will be on them both. Also, what would spur economic globalization? Corporations? Different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups aren't going to get along anyways.

So… No? Yes?

Feel free to add onto what would happen if economic globalization took place and how. I have no looked at the thread yet.


> bring in taxes


>How Apple managed to pay a 0.005% tax rate

>Apple created two subsidiary entities in Ireland — Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe — that effectively own most of the company's intellectual property.

>So when an Apple iPhone is sold in China, for example, Apple's Chinese subsidiary must pay the Irish company to reflect the use of the Irish companies' intellectual property. Only Apple knows what percentage of that iPhone sale is subject to those intellectual property licensing fees, said Robert Willens, a tax consultant and Columbia Business School professor of taxation.

You have no idea of the scale of class warfare going on, do you? You realize these companies are doing absolutely and utterly everything they can to avoid paying taxes to the local communities they operate in?



>You realize these companies are doing absolutely and utterly everything they can to avoid paying taxes to the local communities they operate in?

Yes. I realize it. Personally, I have such little experience in any kind of economics and politics that I can barely comment on them. I especially have limited economic sense and can only do the basics of political opinion. The test was pretty hard for me, so I never really finished it.

Lucky companies, by the way. Paying .0005% tax rate must be amazing.


Ireland is actually in breach of EU tax evasion laws by doing this. Apple owes Ireland like 9 billion euros of tax, but Ireland's politicians fought tooth and nail to not take the money.
There is logic in this- and that is that Ireland's entire economy is based on it being a tax haven. If companies stopped setting up shop there as a EU tax haven, Ireland's economy would collapse overnight. There would be complete chaos, a massive destruction of the economy.
Which is worse than a dozen billion euros, to politicians.

Globalisation is globalisation. If you allow tax havens to exist, they will be used. This half globalisation thing we have now is the worst of both worlds.
Reduction of wages through the global labour pool, and tax evasion enabled by selfish countries.

Of course, globalisation is just a meme, the reality is that the powerful pick and choose what parts of globalisation they want to make themselves more money.


True. It was this low tax strategy which essentially fixed the Irish economy after it was destroyed in the 2008 financial crisis. While unemployment continued to rise in places like Spain, Greece and Portugal, Ireland was attracting industry and creating thousands of new jobs. If corporate tax was raised now and all those American companies decided to leave the country then the loss would be far greater then a couple of billion in potential tax.



Not really, they want to make Ireland a fertile land for the Negroes.


File: 1488962205395.pdf (7.1 MB, TheAssadRegime-web.pdf)

A good read of 2013's syria.


The current political persecution orchestrated against Trump makes me upset for the hypocrisy of a disgraced but powerful class. The things that the media and the political/administrative establishment pull against him make me angry since it's basically the hypocrisy of the status quo.


I'm not a Trump supporter, but I wouldn't shed a tear if he nationalized the press and gassed every single journalist in the US. It would certainly not become any less of an independent and objective profession than it already is. And I mean it.


calm down, brazil.


>getting swept up in politics nonsense
you're inside the black hole now wiz, there's no escape

just try think of it as a game, think of reality and the real world as some fictional place full of weird nonsense


File: 1488987382651.jpg (38.19 KB, 344x490, 1481416678398.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

I won't even ask how you know that.

I don't even know why I read the news anymore. I think I enjoy being upset.


It's all theatrics so not much of a difference.


Trump himself and his supporters are spreading lies all the time too so it's not like we have to feel sorry for little Trump.


That's what I said, right? But a lie is only as big as the people who tell it can push it as truth, so Trump still doesn't even compare. It's the biggest liar calling other people liars while claiming the moral high ground that bothers me.


>so Trump still doesn't even compare

I don't know. He has made quite a sect, I would say he is more influential than his opponents.

Gotta say I love how much of an asshole and how incompetent Trump can be, he is an entertaining guy. I can't take him seriously. Certainly better than Hillary exactly for this reason.

Don't care about politics that much, though. It is a shitshow and people are idiots if they believe any politician has their best interest in mind.


I don't think people necessarily care who has the 100% best of their interests in mind, they care about who has the most of their best interests relative to their opponents and to how much can the candidate accomplish those interests. Naturally this means not all of what is good is done, but only the minimum of what's good enough.

People just want results one way or another. Indecisiveness is poison in politics, despite how much a bit more time to think things over might do good for all parties. Time spent thinking is simply time spent not campaigning, getting supporters, and of course, getting "funding".


The guardian hired these actors to re-enact one of the debates to "prove" that Trump supporters were just sexist and wouldn't vote for a succubus. Turns out the man turns out to be an insufferable cunt and the succubus to be more in control. Shit backfired and they kept the video unlisted.


I wonder what the average american feminist who really believes in bullshit like "glass ceiling" would do if they had to choose between, say, Le Pen and Macron.



Yea, having a succubus play as Trump makes her look very much like Le Pen. It is just the blatant honesty and not conforming to political correct and safe bullshit that is alluring. This type of shit is how US politics were in ye olde times, and the whole manufactured nonsense we see today is only something that cropped up int the past century, I think.

The left wants to continue to play their stupid ass identity politics and ignore the real issues, but I think that the winner will always be the ones who are willing to make a real difference and not the ones who play the bullshit game that globalist politicians have invented over the years.



Senator Rand Paul's proposed Obamacare Replacement outline.

I'm reasonably sure that every time somebody fucks with health care it gets worse in unexpectable ways, and "fucks with" includes both regulating and deregulating. Somehow we always seem to come to a rest at a new low point. I can only assume that attempting to reduce prices by encouraging interstate competition will instead produce an invincible oligopoly with no cost reduction.


The "glass ceiling" is statistically real though. I mean I don't give a shit because those dumb cunts fell for the "You need to wageslave to be happy" meme and are partially responsible for for glutting the supply of laborers to the point where now two people have to work just to get the same effective income as one did decades ago. But it's still a thing.



The way to fix healthcare is to completely get rid of insurance.


It's not real because it is supposedly a barrier that prevents succubi from rising to certain positions. There is no such barrier, Hillary wasn't elected not because she's a succubus but because she's shit. Likewise, succubi earn as much as men, if they work as much as men.



It's a thing to the extent that succubi are still lagging behind in some high status jobs but there are perfectly rational reasons for it. The high-end jobs basically take up you entire life so the only reason men take them is because they want status, which will help them get laid. succubi don't need status to get laid so whenever they take high status jobs it's nothing but a dumb vanity project.


>dumb vanity project
Don't minimize the motivating power of lifelong, pervasive, all-consuming Narcissism when it comes to business.

Female CEOs make twice as much money as male CEOs.



At some point these childless cunts need to retire and when no Chads want to screw them anymore and they have no grandchildren to come and visit them for sure the misery will hit them. And I'm sure with most of them the misery will will hit them in the 40s, soon after their wombs dry up.


At that point they will comfort themselves by hugging a body pillow filled with millions of dollars on top of a mattress stuffed with millions of dollars while being served on hand and foot by young svelte butlers and poolboys named Chad while snorting cocaine off of the genitals of their rented Chippendale dancers.
>money doesn't buy happiness
Religion is the opiate of the masses, decadence is the opiate of the bourgeoisie, and opiates are the opiates of the decadent. Opiates might not quite be happiness but they're close enough for most opiate users.


>Religion is the opiate of the masses, decadence is the opiate of the bourgeoisie, and opiates are the opiates of the decadent.

very well put. Did you come up with that yourself?


>poolboys named Chad while snorting cocaine off of the genitals of their rented Chippendale dancers

The moment you have to pay for sex you lose. And it's more like sex tourism trips to Jamaica that they'll be doing if they have enough money, fucking Tyrones in fancy resorts. But than doing that comes with a whole host of risks. And it will only solve their loneliness as long as they can afford it (until Tyrone figures out their credit card number).


>until Tyrone figures out their credit card number
Anyone clever enough to make the jump to "Buyrone" isn't going to spoil their piss-easy job by stealing. Especially in a place as shitty as Jamaica. A single day working one of those spas and resorts can pay for a week's worth of high-quality schooling for Buyrone's younger family members. A single good tip can be food or rent for an entire month. If you're stupid enough to ruin all that, just for a quick payout, you're probably not the sort of person that these succubi would be interested in to begin with.


I'm having a terribly difficult time understanding the fundamental hatred of the bourgeoisie from a communistic perspective.

What exactly is wrong with someone else having ownership of production and workers, provided he is benevolent and just? It seems they, the communists, argue he must be bad by virtue of having control over others, but if it is done properly would not production be efficient and workers pleased with their jobs?

It seems to me that these communists equate any employment and the employer as guaranteed wageslave relationships, when it is possible that can be conducted to the clear benefit of all involved parties. They also seem to ignore the possibility that if one employer is unfavorable, they can always change employers or occupation in a free market.

This puzzles me, and I am just wondering if any other wizard could share an insight towards the topic.

The fat, top hat-wearing monocled cigar-smoking caricature stereotype seems ridiculous provided that a lead central community planner of the people's party can be equally obese and privileged. It just seems that any idea that someone is better than them outrages the communist, despite the fact that their own movement necessitates revolutionary leaders similarly bossing them around, especially by use of force at gunpoint.


You're moralizing. Dialectical materialism is amoralist, Marx tried his best to avoid caring about whether people were good and evil as such in his analysis. Marx failed in this, often, but his analysis is more concerned with systems and class relationships rather than people and individual relationships.
>provided he is benevolent and just?
Marx's Kapital is an examination of the Transformation Problem, which Adam Smith described. The issue being how value is converted into value in the market. The Labor Theory of Value, employed by Marx but pioneered by Adam Smith, is that the value for exchange is based upon the labor necessary for production. This relationship becomes exploitative when surplus production value is extracted from laborers; however under a Capitalist system, that is an economic system in which in order to remain afloat the capitalist must remain competitive meaning he must accumulate staggering amounts of capital in order to invest and develop his infrastructure and resources (mechanization, automation, industrialization, and all the research, studies, innovations and management techniques being developed in Marx's time), the employer necessarily needs to take in massive profits in order to accumulate the capital necessary to remain a capitalist. This means that he necessarily must extract surplus value from his workers' labor, regardless of his personal morality. The relationship between capital accumulation and the labor class is necessarily exploitative, and the bourgeoisie are definitionally the class which engages in capital accumulation. The Iron Law of Wages (again pioneered by Adam Smith and accepted by Marx) is that this exploitation necessarily reaches equilibrium at the point where, regardless of the nominal value of labor wages, the real wage value comes to a rest at a point where wages are sufficient for the labor class to fulfill their class role, to survive and work and make some minor indulgent purchases; where wages are high and food is inexpensive housing prices will rise astronomically until the point where the laborer is still unable to live off of previous labor and the labor class is fundamentally unable to accumulate capital. It isn't one boss exploiting the individual laborer, but the class relationship between the class of capital accumulation and the class of capital production on the whole that is necessarily exploitative.


I was going to write something about this before I ended up refreshing the tab my mistake, losing everything and then noticed your post. It's really hard to separate the value-free science of economy from the sociopolitical ideology that invariably follows it, but it's really important to try to do it in order to actually understand where these things come from. If we're going to talk about communism we'll have to first talk about Marxism as an economic system, at least if we're going to actually try to argue rather than just shitpost. But, again, even these economic discussions usually devolve into political shitposting.


It may be illuminating to do some research into the distinction Marxists always draw between State Capitalism and Socialism. "State Capitalism" refers to the State acting in the role of the capitalist, described by Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific as the next and significantly more exploitative evolution of capitalism rather than any meaningful reform, because under State Capitalism while not only the individual bourgeoisie but the entire human bourgeoisie class has been removed from effective participation in the relationship, the state acting as capitalist still preserves capitalism and capital accumulation, and so the fundamental relationship between accumulation, labor, and capital remains preserved despite the liquidation of the bourgeoisie. And the State, of course, would not have the complicating human factors of individuality or conscience, and would pursue the function of the capitalist with the ruthlessness of an amoral system.

Socialism as an economic system refers to the democratic and social control of the means of production by the labor class, and you would think that the labor class, being the majority, would automatically have its class interests represented under either pure or even merely representative democracy, such that if the State were to act as the Capitalist under a democratic state then the results would automatically be socialism.


>>Where do you stand politically and why?
I'm a communist. Specifically, a Marxist-Leninist. The why part is too long of a list to answer, but in short: capitalism is an abusive, remorseless, exploitative system. Communism, in its most simple form, can just be explained as sharing. Sharing & redistributing the wealth, specifically. Everyone deserves an equal opportunity to succeed. Everyone deserves basic human rights, such as food, water, shelter, electricity, healthcare, and education (if you seek that out.) No one should be coerced into doing degrading jobs & exhausting labor, with very little reward/pay in return. People shouldn't have to be forced to work their ass off just to stay alive, because in capitalism, without a job & without money, you're threatened with starvation, homelessness, and even death.

>Where do you recieve your news? Do you trust them?

I spend hours on reading, specifically political theory (Marx is great), and I do tons of research. There exists many sources of information about communism to read & learn about online, it's great for beginners. Yes, I trust them. I've learned quite a lot. The shit people were taught in school about communism was all just bourgeois propaganda, most people don't even know what communism is, or what the ideology stands for & how it would work.

>>How do you currently feel about your country on a political level? Should there be change, if any?

It's an imperialist, fascist, capitalist, corrupt garbage fire. Like all of the west. Yes, there needs to be a fundemental change of society. Government, state, and class must be abolished. There would be no more poverty in an ideal society like that, since everyone's needs would be met.


In short, communism is for dreamers. It has no basis in reality. It's full of assumptions, like people will 'enjoy' working, for one.
You should read some history books about how communism is actually implemented. Your broken brain will interpret it as 'it wasn't done right', but the reality is that the exact marxist interpretation you wanted was tried at first, during the first years of the revolution, and evolved into something else shortly after.
The biggest failing of communism is it's not stable. You cannot stop someone like Stalin or Mao taking over and using their personal quirks to break a system.

How can everyone's needs be met if no-one works?
How communism works is that it doesn't. That's the biggest problem. All the marxist theories are a fantastic distraction that don't actually account for how people actually behave in real life.

It's nonsense that's killed enough people.


You're a fucking idiot. People wouldn't stop suddenly working just because communism got established. In fact, I'm pretty sure people would have more motivation to work, since they would actually have a chance to succeed. Capitalism doesn't innovate. People innovate. People aren't going to suddenly become unmotivated & uncreative just because they'd live in a society where all citizens are equal. It's just that, disgusting degrading jobs such as cleaning toilets for example, would be replaced by automation, because most people don't want to do that kind of labor.

Also, you clearly don't know anything about Stalin, Mao, or the USSR. Stalin was a great leader, and Russia (along with all of the other countries in the USSR) fell apart & the economy collapsed once socialism was no longer in rule. During the Soviet Union, the economy is great, everyone had their needs met, life was good, the workers stood in solidarity with each other, there was no class antagonisms or pointless, oppressive hierarchy. Stalin was a great leader, and many people who remember living under the Soviet Union remember it with tears in their eyes, because they miss it so much & want it back. Poverty has increased since the USSR died. Stalin wasn't evil or corrupt, and he didn't kill innocent people.

The numbers are grossly exaggerated, (Hitler's chief propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, spread the lie that the famine in the USSR was a genocide) and Stalin actually tried to prevent the famine (which wasn't even caused because of communism) and it's been proven, since he sent letters from Moscow to Ukraine, regarding taking immediate action during the famine.

You clearly don't know anything about communism as much as you think you do. How about, do some research so you don't make yourself look like a complete fucking idiot, and read Marx.


So I read a Forbes article from a Republican who abandoned the party around the 2016 election. Generally people who abandon their old views move pretty switftly pretty far in the opposite direction; the Neoconservative movement in the Republican Party of the 1970s was constructed largely by former Trotskyites, in particular Irving Kristol and his peers and pupils. Trotskyite entryism failed to turn the Democratic Party into a Communist party, but seemed to have succeeded terrifyingly at turning many Communists into Republicans.

Anyways, the Forbes article:

I thought it was interesting how Trump seemed to have turned this man not only against the Republican party as an organization, but against capitalism as a structure for the distribution of cost, labor, and resources, at least in the case of health care. So I decided to check out the website he runs and linked to. A lot of the site was more or less just Trump bullshit, and everybody goes a little crazy when writing about Trump, especially from an opposition perspective. But every now and then there was something more interesting:
It's not news that Friedman, Hayek and the brightest of the von Mises school endorsed basic income, at different times and probably for different reasons. The interesting part is that a man who went so hard into Never Trump mode that he broke out of the entire Republican party would land on UBI; I'd actually expect UBI more from the politically eccentric Trump supporters than from his enemies who came from the older Establishment Right. This seems like an indicator that we might actually see UBI within our lifetimes.

But then, inevitably, in the midst of his articles about healthcare, Trump, UBI, and how the Republican party became something weird and alien to an establishment insider like him, he decided to relate the state of civilization and the current political climate to… the existence of adult male virgins.
Fucking goddamned normalfags.


>People wouldn't stop suddenly working just because communism got established.
Except they did.

>I'm pretty sure people would have more motivation to work since they would actually have a chance to succeed.

How? If it's an egalitarian society, working harder won't result in giving you status, privilege or anything worth working for.
Did you even read marx?

>People aren't going to suddenly become unmotivated & uncreative just because they'd live in a society where all citizens are equal

Except they did. Stalin had to push extreme nationalism and wage increases to get people to not just give up. And even then he had to send millions of people to the gulag and force them to work at the end of a whip.

All of your 'people will just keep working for socialist pride!' bullshit was what fed the communist revolutions around the world and it was proven false almost immediately. when workers were given the ability to choose their own fate they ran factories into the ground, ceasing production and destroying the nation as a whole. The reaction to this from leadership is to re-give power to managers, and so they use the stick to force people to work, causing the system to become even worse than capitalism.

In capitalism your life can be worth nothing- communists will at least spend a bullet.

>Stalin wasn't evil or corrupt, and he didn't kill innocent people.

I'm done.


will you ever stop linking clickbait articles and fake news as sources?


Even fucking Kruschev railed on stalin's massive purge of innocent people. After stalin's death he famously gave a speech so harsh on Stalin's murder and destruction that at least one party member had a heart attack.
I'm sure the gulags weren't real either- just a result of western propaganda. Forget the fact that after Stalin's death all of his inner circle immediately vouched to deconstruct the gulag- and not for ethical reasons, either. It was a system that was simply ineffective and wasteful.

Your knowledge of communist states is so basic, and full of nonsense. You're so wrong that I honestly think you're just baiting me.


>Your broken brain
>fucking idiot

Wizards usually have brain problems. This doesn't disqualify us from conversation, or invalidate our opinions. A wizard who is dumb and works within his limited capacity towards a fact-based interpretation and a high-IQ schizotypal wizard who follows his intuition wherever it might lead might both have a share of the truth, but both might be horribly wrong, and both might have some insight of value to offer the other, as long as they are willing to both teach and learn. If one is neither willing to learn nor to teach then a thread like this has no value to them.

I think that you will both feel more fulfilled by this thread if you try to interact with each other in a more conciliatory manner. Most people have an instinctive drive to learn and to impart knowledge, that's one of the more neglected aspects of man as a social toolmaker, modern societies entrusted teaching to a profession and learning to a controlled and confined environment and in so doing I think we made ourselves less able to seek and provide fulfilling interactions outside of that formal structure. Students are taught to listen and obey, and teachers work as instructors and trainers, not people each attempting to improve in wisdom through mutual interaction in the manner of the older symposium model, and this leaves us less willing to gain understanding through mutual interaction on the whole. Education is one of those alienating and dehumanizing experiences that everybody can see has some serious problems but nobody has ever been able to solve. Maybe if some genius wizard were to move to a cabin in Montana and start writing a logical analysis of the inherent problems industrial society he'd be able to find a solution…


Communists tend to be intractable. Their ideas are inflated in the dreamland of the 'revolution' and the 'power of the worker'. The ideology is full of assumptions like how the proletariat will be motivated to work by nothing but love of communism, or how the bourgeois can be convinced to love communism and relinquish their property to the working man without the use of violence.

Or how communism can be inflicted on a nation by a majority, a majority that can't even agree on what TV show they like to watch can somehow agree to all rise up and overthrow the intelligentsia. Their brains are stuck in possibilities and fantasy- like those people who believe in magical crystal healing, homeopathy and such. They'll bring out convincing rhetoric and entire manuals explaining how their system works- but it doesn't.
It's unscientific and unrational in its most intense form. Marx was a dreamer who had no solid ideology of his own- his own philosophy flip flopped around as he aged, as he retconned his own work in public and in private.
The glorious irony being that marx concluded that communism cannot be forced, it has to be discovered. 'Teaching' people communism is not how marx thought communism would exist- it's not something that is taught.

Communism is a physical impossibility. I'm not even arguing if it's good or bad, I'm saying it's impossible to implement. Even if you did magically implement it you have to constantly protect it from corruption. It's an inherently weak system. Weak from within, weak from without.
Implementing a weak system is the biggest crime you could commit on a population.


File: 1489323885311.jpg (90.75 KB, 306x475, redflagcover.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

I feel like I should still apologise for my harsh attitude, but I've got to the end of a recent history of communism, pic related.
Recent enough to both have research from the previously sealed archives of the soviet union, and to not be clouded by the madness of the cold war.
It starts at the beginning; Jacobinism and the french revolution, moving to early leftist thought and communal living and extreme socialism, to marxism as a collection of the various bits and pieces lying around, and how marx himself kept changing his mind about the economic systems he hypothesised as he learned more about how capital works. He knew a lot about capital but very little about people.
Moving through WW1, leninism, and then Stalinism. It covers the successes of communism, as much as is possible for such a failure of a system.
Especially in early communist china, where land reform actually helped a fair bit. Until the realities of communism kicked in and millions of people died.

I'm fresh off the heels of a detailed history of communism actually being implemented in the real world and while the book barely mentions the dozens of millions of skeletons, those people cannot be unkilled.


File: 1489331334622.jpg (30.32 KB, 500x500, max.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

So many spooks in this thread…


Is there an unbiased book about the History of Capitalism? Because that isn't a good system either.


Replacing a faulty but functional system with one that doesn't even work at all is silly.


It's about time, today is born the WCP(Wizards Communist Party).

Our program is the following:
-guarantee neetbux to all wizards around the world
-overthrow the rich normalfags, distribute the wealth among wizards
-destroy the religious institutions supporting breeders
-actually hang breeders in case we gain full power
-kick pol's ass out of wizchan once for all
-put all succubi in isolated islands far away from civilization
-provide a gun to every wizard

What to do in order to support the party:
-steal from normalfags targeting the rich
-exploit capitalist welfare states
-oppose abrahamic monotheistic religions

We are pro abortion and euthanasia for both animals and humans, nobody should suffer because of assholes reproducing, join the party now!


>kick pol's ass out of wizchan
And replace it with "leftypol"?
No, thank you. Both of your cliques should leave.


File: 1489365451710.png (17.99 KB, 1280x640, hey_wizard_whatcha_doin.png) ImgOps iqdb

Wizards of the world, unite!


Politics is my least favorite of the distasteful, normal activities; I imagine I'm not alone in that view on here.


Stop forcing your shitty meme.


>-put all succubi in isolated islands far away from civilization
Why not go the extra length and wipe them off theplanet?


Are you a capitalist pig?

Not necessary, deportation is easier too, no need to clean


Do your larping back on 8chad, please.


8chads are capitalist pigs


On tumblr then. Or reddit. Sorry, but I don't know much about the differences between various sorts of cesspools like that. Point being: don't force your shit here.



Your overaggressive approach can never hope to be integrated into the world that exists.

Social Wizardocracy is the only way forwards for the wizards and apprentices of the world.

Our platform is:
–Universal Basic Income to be based around the price of rent.
–The total repeal of Daylight Savings Time
–State-run capitalist enterprises whose profits are reinvested into the wizard community, especially in the form of benefits and education distributed to the wizards, and the further development of automation to create and enable a technologically advanced Zerowork society.
–Rational limits on the price of rent based on the rate of Universal Basic Income
–The reduction of work hours to 30 per week for fulltime employment.
–State investment into the development of commercial art and entertainment for the purpose of promoting and enabling the wizard lifestyle, particularly animation
–The total repeal of Daylight Savings Time
–Legalization and enablement of euthanasia upon request without limitation or constraint
–Broad repeal of laws pertaining to nonsexual vices; while drugs and gambling might be unwizardly, at present they exist as a reward exclusive to the chads of the underworld, and that exclusivity makes a kind of status, and all marks of status, including access to and sale of drugs, should be removed from the chad population.
–The total repeal of Daylight Savings Time
–Massive police presence, nominally to enforce a peaceful society, but realistically so that the position of Night Watchman is available to any wizard who requires work either for extra luxuries not gained by basic income or for psychological reasons of his own.
–Redevelopment of the prison system to make prison rape unthinkable, not so much to protect any criminal wizards as to persecute criminal normalfags
–Total elimination of prostitution, not by illegalization (it does no good to persecute failed normalfags) but through state-funded automation, perhaps after a waiting period of state-run and state-operated brothels. This is a job that robots can and logically should perform and we should not allow bioconservatives to hold society back in this regard.
–The total repeal of Daylight Savings Time


File: 1489374599441.png (30.23 KB, 1000x600, heil_wizler.png) ImgOps iqdb

Gas the norms, wiz war now!


Anyone else notice how more normies are now redpilled ever since Trump won? People are starting to wake up to the corruption.


File: 1489388566092.jpg (22.68 KB, 431x550, neuesvolk.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

National Socialism is inherently anti-wizard.


File: 1489388993805.jpg (72.09 KB, 600x458, Warlock Wars Now.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

You guys know that there was an "RP" thread in /hob/ from way back in 2015. Such posts would be a boon there if it hasn't been bumped off already.


File: 1489420435827.png (Spoiler Image, 18.48 KB, 1280x931, flag_of_wizrael.png) ImgOps iqdb


I wonder who could be behind this post…


You mean normals take the side of the authority? Who would have thought?


>People are starting to wake up to the corruption.

No, if that was the case then the wizard life would be promoted.

Nobody is waking up, they just hop onto the edgy circle-jerk called 'alt-right'.


If there is a political view which allows me to kill succubi and chads as much as I like, I'd like to chose that one.


The wizard life shouldn't be promoted to everyone, some must breed to prevent extinction. The wizard life is only for some who are lucky enough to do it.


File: 1489422901110.jpg (112.08 KB, 640x360, Stalin.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>some must breed to prevent extinction

But the end goal is extinction…


Well in some ways humanity is rushing towards it so in the end I don't think it matters, soon we will kill the earth


File: 1489423210860.jpg (1.15 MB, 2448x3264, stalin_museum_batumi.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>soon we will kill the earth

This is a lie of the breeder propaganda machine. They trick normals into breeding more little fucks since "the end days are near!".

Damn, we really need another normalfag remover like pic related.


Too bad he was assassinated before he could start WW3 and start the Great Killing of all lifeforms.


Other way around really, they tell white people that the world is so dirty because they are breeding too much even though it's Africans and Asians doing all the breeding and Europeans population is very small compared.


File: 1489424759914.jpg (44.41 KB, 620x372, Joseph-Stalin-010.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>they tell white people that the world is so dirty because they are breeding too much even though

who exactly? To my knowledge both the left and the right acknowledge the fact that whites breed the least and that birth rates are dropping in developed countries.

>even though it's Africans and Asians doing all the breeding and Europeans population is very small compared.

It is a shame, niggers and chinks need to follow the civilized way too.


This thread almost went in a good direction. Then the 18 year olds had to start discussing gommunism.


Yeah, he was our last hope.
Though we can still pray to Him, I guess.

Very original.


File: 1489425425955.png (81.19 KB, 1280x853, join_or_die.png) ImgOps iqdb


Wizards please, communism is not the answer. It in freedom AGAINST tyranny, not FOR it. We must have the fundamental unalienable human right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of NEETness. The normies will then therefore leave us alone and we can enjoy the fruits of THEIR labor.

FREEDOM is the future my magical brethren. Give me liberty or give me death!


I agree. We should discuss something new.

How do you wizards feel about anarcho-capitalism?


We can only be free if we as the Wizard Communist Party rule over normals.

>How do you wizards feel about anarcho-capitalism?

Absolutely disgusting, psychopathic Chads' favorite system.


File: 1489425851879.jpg (38.38 KB, 680x439, 1482486903333.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Communism is great in theory though, it just can't work because humans are fucking garbage.


Meh, prefer anarco-syndicism or anarcho-collectivism, pure free market stuff is just like communism in that it never works as good in the real world as it does on paper


>who exactly? To my knowledge both the left and the right acknowledge the fact that whites breed the least and that birth rates are dropping in developed countries.
Probably, the way it works is that the well off, rich whites are told about the dangers of population and global warming or whatever and they think that by not having kids they're doing a service to the world, meanwhile 3rd worlders breed like rabbit, but they've also been brainwashed into being race blind so they don't see a difference between them and others


You do realize that every first world child uses many many many times more resources than a third world dirt farmer kid, right?


Sure but you do realise India and China pollute far more than any Western country bar the USA which is second to China but above India?


The US and other western nations produced much more of assorted pollution than all other countries combined for centuries, and in other measures such as CO2 (which is a good measure of other pollutants generated by fossil fuels) many other smaller first world western nations still produce more per capita than any other nation excluding china. In fact china is actually making faster strides in reducing their pollution while becoming an industrialized nation than the US or other western nations ever did. It's also funny that you mention china given that china's fertility rate is currently below replacement rates, that is to say they are not currently growing but shrinking.

Getting a bit off track there, but the the point is per-capita pollution is what counts, and if some poo-to-the-loo produces 1/6 the amount it hardly matters if they have 3 times the kids since it all evens out.

Besides, it's going to be all the more hilarious when fuckhueg poor as dirt populations like India get hit by global warming induced crop failures and droughts.


File: 1489428860023.png (29.13 KB, 1280x791, liberal_wizard.png) ImgOps iqdb


I've never understood this panic about "dropping birth rates".

Sure, birth dates are dropping in 1st world countries but that's only natural in developed countries. It is simply foolish to expect that the birthrate will keep on rising indefinitely, and while it is true that 3rd worlders breed themselves to death, the moment they move to a 1st world country their birth rates will dwindle down in a couple of generations to the same level as 1st worlders.

The whole reason why 3rd worlders breed so much is that they see their children as means of sustaining themselves instead of jobs (because their children will also get jobs and give them money, more kids = more money), and in their old age as their insurance/retirement vehicle because they lack the 1st world luxuries of decent jobs and actual insurance/retirement for themselves. Compare this to the 1st world where more children = LESS money, because they are much more expensive to raise in the 1st world and the payoff is that they tend to leave the house altogether to pay off their own debts like student loans rather than give back.

It seems that people think that birth rates are static, when they absolutely change relative to the conditions of the average family. Culturally speaking it is also true that some families have more children than others, but as their children integrate, then they slowly lose the same kind of traditional zeal to pop as many babies as possible. It is just impractical to have tons of babies in the 1st world compared to the 3rd, so people of all colors tend to not have as many children as they are used to and that's OK.

Yes, the following is an anecdote but allow be to illustrate: in the US, Mexican *legal* immigrants generally have more children. The following generation, they have less children as they adopt whiter cultures and become less religious overall. They may even racemix, further stifling their family's birth rate to the white man's level.

>but what if they don't integrate!

By their very nature of being in the 1st world, in many ways they MUST integrate one way or another, especially their children. Acquiring a job, new social customs – everything in the 1st world is such a contrast to whatever the hell they came from that if they do not integrate, then how will they make money?


Which is a different issue altogether. Welfare was absolutely a mistake, but that's a whole different can of worms than ">immigrants are outbreeding us!". There's nothing wrong with *legal* immigrants either, the illegals are the ones causing trouble and not being productive: legal ones tend to come in for jobs and businesses and are delightful.

Basically, the white race isn't dying. A lower population doesn't necessarily mean that holy shit we're going extinct tomorrow. It is just a lower population. There will always be breeders to continue the normie line, with wizards popping out every once in a while.

I speak a lot of this first-hand based on observations as a legal immigrant from a 3rd world country to the US. The amount of times my extended family asks for money is insane.


To me it's like; Youth unemployment is a massive problem and overpopulation is a problem, yet falling birth rates is bad?
I don't get it.


The answer to any incongruity in human behavior is usually best answered by simply realizing that humans are total fucking retards.


The problem with it is the governments using mass immigration to prop up the birth rates and what will eventually lead to a total replacement of the native populations


>illegals are not productive
Actually illegals provide a great labor source, they can practically be treated like slaves with no legal recourse, so they work 6-7 days a week, doing 12-16 hour shifts living in plywood huts often getting paid only pennies on the dollar. The best part is, since even when the books are cooked to hide this labor, tax is often paid on it by the companies to the government, and some of the cost saved on labor is passed on in savings to consumers, so the only people who actually lose out are these "illegals" who are more or less sanctioned by the government that has criminalized them. The funniest part of all of this is that the US has basically created the dilapidated, corrupt and violent systems that these illegals are trying to escape from thus ensuring a constant supply of cheap labor that it's own citizens has left behind.

Frankly it's a pretty brilliant system.


I understand the concern of government trying to artificially prop up a population (as that isn't very practical), but to the extent that it will "lead to a total replacement of the native population" appears rather absurd. You do realize that the government would need to continuously introduce tons more immigrants over several decades i.e. generations assuming the 1st-generation immigrant birth rates remain a constant to even stand a chance at completely replacing a native population.

2nd generation+ immigrant families simply do not have as much children as the 1st generation because by immigrating, they become westernized. They go to the same public schools, watch the same shit on television, and play the same video games, leading to a decline in their own ethnicity's birth rates. Some even become NEETs and do not reproduce at all.

No, the problem remains as what it always was: Race mixing. If your bucket of blue water is slowly mixing with red, pouring more blue water into it won't make the purple disappear. You can try and dilute it, but it will never be the same and the shades of purple will still be there.

And yet nobody takes race mixing as seriously as immigration because diversity is our strength, just breed more if you want to stay pure. It is maddening.



Pretty sure that's already been debunked, the majority of islamic terrorists in many western countries are 2nd or 3rd generation. They don't assimilate because they go to schools where all the whites white flighted from and they go home to ethnic ghettos surrounded by their own kind. They have no reason to act like goo' boys because they aren't afraid of being deported. Also a study in the UK where 2nd gen muslims were actually more extreme than their parents. It took generations and WW2 germanophobe hysteria for the germans and scandinavians to forget their native tongues in the US, and the US is one of the better ones at assimilation and those were europeans.


The problem for wizards is just that as soon as the party who imported the third worlders as a huge voting block has enough of them, they no longer need to pander to the native population including the wizards. They are playing the long game, essentially cheating in an attempt to secure dynastic rule. Unless the native population realizes what is happening halfway through and starts resisting in a dramatic increase in racial and religious tension and tribalism which is what seems to be happening right now in multiple countries.

"In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion." Lee Kuan Yew, 'founder'and first PM of Singapore.


And one must also not forget the immediate interests of politicians either. Way back during and after the Vietnam war, democrats in California opposed vietnamese refugees for a variety reasons, including the concern that since they were South Vietnamese and anti-communists they would vote Republican.

>Despite today’s outrage over President Donald Trump’s refugee executive order, many liberals in 1975 were part of a chorus of big name Democrats who refused to accept any Vietnamese refugees when millions were trying to escape South Vietnam as it fell to the communists.

>They even opposed orphans.

>The group, led by California’s Gov. Jerry Brown, included such liberal luminaries as Delaware’s Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, former presidential “peace candidate” George McGovern, and New York Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman.

>The Los Angeles Times reported Brown even attempted to prevent planes carrying Vietnamese refugees from landing at Travis Air Force Base outside San Francisco. About 500 people were arriving each day and eventually 131,000 arrived in the United States between 1975 and 1977.

>These people arrived despite protests from liberal Democrats. In 2015, the Los Angeles Times recounted Brown’s ugly attitude, reporting, “Brown has his own checkered history of demagoguery about refugees.”

>Back in 1975, millions of South Vietnamese who worked for or supported the U.S. found themselves trapped behind the lines when the communists took over the country. Vietnamese emigre Tung Vu, writing in Northwest Asian Weekly, recalled the hardships the Vietnamese faced in 1975 as they tried to escape the communists.

>In the end, most of the Democrat complaints appeared to center on the fact that the refugees were escaping communism, which many liberals did not find that objectionable.

>“One of the justifications that Ford gave was related to communism. He said these people are all fleeing communism, which was the same criteria that had been used for the Cubans, the Hungarians, other refugee groups that had been processed in the past,” Taft explained.


Today though Democrats are for unrestrained immigration from hispanic and Islamic countries, because they know they are reliable voting blocks, especially the latter.


File: 1489448267853.gif (2.36 MB, 400x299, stalin2.gif) ImgOps iqdb

>they do not support antinatalism to a global level
Now you go to gulag


>tfw you are South Vietnamese and staunchly anti-communist
Only old-timers vote Republican now; all the young people vote Democrat like all the other minorities. It's still enough though that Vietnamese is the most Republican of all Asian constituencies. I would vote Republican, but I don't bother with the outside world.


>all the young people vote Democrat like all the other minorities. It's still enough though that Vietnamese is the most Republican of all Asian constituencies.

Who would you say are most liberal Asians in your opinion?

It seems like in general, first-generation Asians are usually extremely conservative, starting businesses and taking in very little welfare (if at all). Now when their children grow up, however, they usually become as mindless as other minorities just because they are one, and I can see that happen especially if they spawn HAPAs. But then again they aren't all that Asian at that point anymore are they.



I dont think they have a grand plan, they just probably love to get buttfucked, as simple as that.


I don't know, having not had much interaction with other Asians for an anecdote, but the statistical answer to your question can easily be found online. I actually talked my mom out of abusing welfare/housing once. A lot of elderly people are on it though since they were already old when they got here. Asians in general are in some ways more "redpilled" but glaringly blind to other things you'd take for granted. I grew up steeped in stories of the war and identify more with the older generations, but I sometimes feel at a loss compared to the younger generation who seem to easily embrace Westernness shallowly without really understanding it. I sometimes wish I was ideologically pure and raised as an exemplar of Eastern traditions, but that's just as futile as wishing to not be born. HAPAs are a can of worms I'd rather not open. I believe that I understand the Western mind fairly well at the cost of being a mental mongrel and forever ensnared by the siren song of individualism (though I suspect our shared future is collectivist). It would not surprise me if I were one of a kind with all these conditions.


File: 1489813181135.png (Spoiler Image, 589.36 KB, 800x600, research_material_of_avera….png) ImgOps iqdb

Thoughts on the tranny bathroom bill? Is transgenderism even legitimate?

I ask this because the very concept of the Average Wizard, or transgenderism, has been a topic of peculiar curiosity to me. While in no way personally afflicted myself with such mental illness, personal research regarding the subject matter at hand has been both greatly mentally intriguing and …erotically stimulating… to say the least. But I digress, all humor aside.

Basically what I've gathered is that according to general liberal thought (as most transgender people tend to politically align themselves in) using their own source material such as blogs, forums, books, etc., suggests that transgenderism appears to be a largely "feeling"-based cognitive ailment with clear diagnostic and legal ambiguity that ranges from being a mild case of crossdressing, sexual deviancy, and extreme fetishism, to surprisingly completely non-sexual lifelong inclinations that results in great distress and depression. Suicide or suicidal thoughts are a consistent occurrence in most cases, which I suspect is simply nature filtering itself out.

It was rather difficult understanding the bulk of their writing due to such heavily touchy-feely tendencies in explanation, but I remain confident with my own opinion that they are in actuality nothing more than mentally ill citizens that can be productive, fully capable of integrating themselves in the working world and contributing back in return like any other treatable patient provided they receive proper treatment This particular form of treatment, I believe, is what lies at the heart of what many transgender people concern themselves with, pleading for societal "acceptance" as some kind of bizarre norm, or more accurately just medicine to help them cope and manage themselves.

Obviously the level of "acceptance" in most politically-liberal cases is rather silly as it invites even more wicked concepts such as "non-binary" or "genderfluid" lunatics, but for the most part there is some reasonable coherency in what most transgender people look for: medicine in the form of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) to drastically alter their appearance/mood, and the open possibility of Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS). HRT is typically just them taking pills or whatever means harmless means of artificially managing their hormone levels, whereas SRS is more crudely the snipity snip* of their wands.

*In what was one of the most haunting videos I have ever seen for myself, believe it or not there are public clips of people's wands getting fucking inverted right before your eyes. No, they don't actually chop off the damn things, they twist and push it inwards to form a pseudo-succubi hole and oh god what the actual fuck was I doing with my life there was so much blood everywhere look it up if you dare, I warned you..

So in relation to the bathroom bill, I now remain convinced that the issue could be easily resolved with a generally acceptable outcome in a win-win scenario if and only if the following stipulations are made: (1) Transgenderism is formally classified at the very least as a real cognitive condition so that they may receive treatment by insurance companies and become fully productive instead of killing themselves, and more importantly that (2) Transgenderism is officially defined as "someone who identifies as the opposite sex they were born as and is willing or currently taking Hormone Replacement Therapy". I say (1) to maximize their potential utility towards treatment as working citizens to help pay taxes and provide us more NEETbux, and (2) in order to eliminate the crazed "I-identify-as-a-attack-helicopter" crowd who change genders willy-nilly depending on their mood (not making this up), and are beyond redemption, often bandwagoning on transgender rights in hopes of securing their own.

The bathroom bill in itself focused largely onto which bathroom should transgender people go to, but the problem is that "non-passing", i.e. self-identified "succubi" that still 100% look like men or disgusting imitations thereof (because they are not willing or take Hormone Replacement Therapy) feel they are entitled to the succubi's bathroom and make everyone uncomfortable. With (1) and (2) in check, those who actually seek treatment and then pass as succubi will use the proper bathroom as needed because the extent of treatment when done properly allows for them to "pass" and blend in as any other succubi.

Really, that is what was the most surprising find I could share with my fellow wizards: it actually is possible to successfully transform men into succubi with treatment and not liberal wishful thinking. Previously I was long on the "your chromosomes say XY therefore you are men" boat, but upon further research, I have found sufficiently numerous examples (illegal to wizard rules to cite here) that indicate that yes, if one is young enough with enough time, treatment, good genes, voice practicing, and other adopted behavior, complete succubi emulation is absolutely possible. Truly science has gone too far, but as an observer the changes were as startling as they were utterly creepy if one knew in person before and after.

Simply if more of these succubi-like people are made instead of freely identifying freaks who do not desire treatment, then no doubt the transgender situation would improve vastly into the acceptance they highly yearn for – and that means more successful integration for us is more normie NEETbux machines to fund the system. All in all, this has just been something on my mind recently that I wished to share and gather input if I've what I've said seems reasonable enough, or at the very least is informative. Seriously, surgical videos of Sex Reassignment Surgery is speechlessly horrifying to witness.



>Really, that is what was the most surprising find I could share with my fellow wizards: it actually is possible to successfully transform men into succubi with treatment and not liberal wishful thinking. Previously I was long on the "your chromosomes say XY therefore you are men" boat, but upon further research, I have found sufficiently numerous examples (illegal to wizard rules to cite here) that indicate that yes, if one is young enough with enough time, treatment, good genes, voice practicing, and other adopted behavior, complete succubi emulation is absolutely possible. Truly science has gone too far, but as an observer the changes were as startling as they were utterly creepy if one knew in person before and after.

Are you speaking of John Money? If so, there is additional conversation to be had, as people believe that his research was not only unethical, (both boys died via suicide, one by shotgun to the head, the other by overdosing on anti-depressants) but unsuccessful, contrary to popular belief.

Thank you.


This is great stuff.


I don't give a shit, all bathrooms should be unisex anyways, can more than doubles the amount of toilets available at any one time. Also gendered toilets is clearly a case of "separate but equal" discrimination that should have been struck down ages ago.


I disagree. As a janitor, let me tell you first and foremost that there are very clear biological differences between men and succubi, meaning that unisexualizing all of the restrooms necessitates either less stalls for succubi or less urinals for men overall.

>stall them all! Men can just sit to pee!

Forcing a whole gender to act against natural inclinations is preposterous and remains undoubtedly biased, which is not equality at all. And don't tell them to just pee standing up either, as that would lead to them playing target practice and pissing all over the seats that succubi may have to sit on, with many not bothering to lift it up in the first place. Forced equality for the sake of it to the expense of all parties (because there will bitching from both sides) is hardly a needed equality at all.

Regular family/disabled/unisex restrooms are fine as they are fulfilling its role, albeit usually some of the dirtiest to clean. Household restrooms usually do not have to deal with this out of financial constraints and utility, but on a larger level it just wouldn't work. Differentiated restrooms maximizes the utility of both sexes' needs and privacy.

>separate but equal!

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with economic equality as that yields greater economic prosperity, the problem lies whenever such a slogan bleeds past the economic realm. There are simply observable, biological, and pattern-based differences that cannot be ignored. Social justice and political correctness does not nullify that, and basing entire policies on enforced impractical notions is utterly and heinously anti-freedom delusion.


John Money's work are interesting, but failed as the subjects did not intentionally identify as the gender they were forcibly assigned, obviously leading to trouble later.

There are other much more realistic cases of transgender people who actually choose such a fate, and who actively seek treatment from medical specialists instead of trying to undo their work non-consensually conducted to them at birth. From what I've read about, depression and suicides' propensity rests as a strongly correlated phenomenon rather than a distinct cause – a good sign to the possible treatment of such individuals as relatively happy transgender people do exist.

You are welcome.



I don't care much but lean towards being fine with it. Transgenderism seems like a ZOG side issue to distract people. Weird how it is so prominent right now when the economy is the way it is, usually these culture war shit happens when the economy is good. I guess the bankers don't want people to think about prosecuting them.



This is even better. It's always funner to watch two guys that hate each others guts and who aren't open to a dialog.


I don't want to piss near succubi. Are you a fucking faggot or just normalfilth?


>not even a choice
Im something close to an anarchist because i only care about myself.
You could stress all day you want but no human is worth fighting for and every ideology is bound to fuck up and it all stands on some niggers labor.

>news are all the same thing happening again and again


Heh, i cant change anything when i could hardly change my own life

Politics is basically sports for autist


Well of course transgenderism is a mental illness, just like being a wizard. Both need to be treated with drugs and just about whatever it takes, until the subject is normal. :)


That's a false equivalence.


If we compare the most mentally healthy wizards to the most unstable trannies, yes. Otherwise, not really.


And they're unstable because they pump themselves full of hormones, my advice for which is to only do that as an absolute last resort. But it's ultimately two groups of non-conforming neuro-atypicals inventing reasons to shit on one another.


Transgenderism is totally incompatible with wizardry, it's whole thing is to LARP and expend a large amount of effort to try to switch to another classification for the purposes of being validated externally. There are no normans trying to 'transition into becoming wizards(Doing so is impossible but so is becoming a succubi) because there is no validation to be gained from doing so. Trannies are incels that realized they are considered failures as men by society, thus they become failed succubi to receive more attention than they ever would have as failed men.


Transgenderism is by definition the desperation to conform, and the pursuit to be validated and be showered with praise is pretty neurotypical.


how are they conforming?



Is this a joke? Their entire existence is a desperate effort to conform to another dumb type of normgroid. They are not more uniqueee and individual than regular normans, just more pathetic and tryhard.


Being a virgin is not a mental illness, suffering from transsexualism is.


>he doesn't realize there are also female-to-male trans
>he doesn't realize there are more than 2 genders
>he doesn't realize by becoming trans, they would indeed receive more attention, but negative attention (eg violence)
what a shitpost


yes, of course, they are so conformist they experience a lot more violence than cispeople. Life must be good when you are a trans.

There are no mental illnesses, only political power.


Who are you quoting? Just abusing the quote function like a 4chan tourist who doesn't know the étiquette here, and playing the 'poor incels are victims' game.


Are you misgendering me?


Being a wizard by definition is abnormal, heck in many ways it may be more abnormal than transsexaulism.

>But mental illness

Mental illness is a spook which can change depending on whatever the fucking quacks say.


Being called conformist threatens a tranny's already fragile, tryhard identity so I'm not surprised you're defensive.

Any attention, even negative attention is preferred over being ignored, especially for incels who have been ignored their entire lives and were desperate enough to LARP as failed succubi. That's like acting dumbfounded when an attention whore acts out to be noticed even though they get laughed at.


>Being a virgin is not a mental illness
Realistically, there are a couple of reasons for that, and none of them amount to "virginity is not a disordered state."
Firstly the psychiatric establishments which draft up clinical standards would have to deal with the purely political tangle of having to constantly argue why female and male virginity are completely different and separate subjects with no particular relationship to one another, why the statistical links between one and one set of disorders are completely incompatible and incomparable with the other, and all that. We're talking about psychiatric organizations here, which fold like origami at the slightest external pressure; the MBTI tells people that "introversion" is not a disorder, and loud, outgoing, ostentatious self-proclaimed introverts apply pressure, and the ICD redacted Introverse Personality Disorder.
Secondly, most virgins are already covered in a "close enough" way by several existing disorders. Most wizards on this site fall under at least one of the following: Introverse Personality Disorder, Depressive Personality Disorder, Avoidant Personality Disorder, and, most commonly, Drapetomania and Sluggish Schizophrenia.
Thirdly, Gilmartin started talking about occultism for no real reason in his psychiatric book on incels, and did so long after Freud and Jung were dead and talking about occultism in psychiatric circles wasn't cool anymore, and became a laughingstock. For the most part studying virgins is about as uncool as being a virgin, and being a serious scientist in the medical profession is about being cool and being paid well, not about developing a scientific understanding of the human condition or alleviating suffering.


You sure know a lot of psychology of transpersons. May I ask you where have you acquired this knowledge? no, Youtube anti-SJW rants and Jordan Peterson's lectures doesn't count


wait so while we're on the topic: can a female to male trannies be wizards if they remain a virgin?

i know obviously a man who turns into a succubus can't be a wizard, but like they can always undo it right? would a man who had temporarily lived life as a succubus be a wizard provided their virginity remains intact?

pls answer


This place is going to shit and there's no stopping it.


>Being a wizard by definition is abnormal
The state of not having inserted your penis into a vagina is not a disease. Believing oneself to be female when you are, in fact, male, is.


If your only argument is to act smarmy and associate me with e-celebs nobody knows or cares about to make me look bad, don't bother trying. Nobody cares about your gossip and social shaming.



My understanding of the standards required before sexual reassignment is that one be "gender nonconforming" to an extreme extent, and one must become an outrageous parody, not of the male or masculine as they exist in current scientific understanding, but as they exist according to cultural norms, which is considered the substance of "gender nonconforming" prerequisite. Introversion is more common in males than in females by a considerable percentage, but to transition to a male the female must demonstrate an aggressive, outgoing, interpersonally forceful approach to socialization. In essence a loud, outgoing Chad type of personality. The quietism of the wizard would be considered a case against reassignment.

Really this is so purely theoretical that it verges on nonsense, no FTM trans has ever posted here to my knowledge, nor has any one ever even considered posting here, whereas MTFs keep coming here and saying "I'm a succubus on the inside and in reality but I have a right to come here because I only ever gave a couple of guys blowjobs, accept me." I think people only try to bring up the meaningless hypothetical possibility of a FTM wizard as part of an attempt to open the door to MTF "blowjob wizards" and the like.


File: 1489968696976.jpg (9.69 KB, 202x249, index.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>Semantic arguments based on relative concepts


No, because they are succubi, and therefore by definition do not belong here any more than I belong in a zoo if I stick a broom up my asshole and start flapping my arms while making noises.


No trannies can't be wizards in any form. You must be both biologically and psychologically male. The "pls answer" makes me think you're a tranny yourself or you have a "friend" who is one and you/them want to be included into the community.


Stop abusing the quote function.


I'll stop once you post an argument that is worthy of another kind of response.


OK, so you admit the assertion that transpeople only want attention (even though there are infinitely more ways to get that without transistioning, which is difficult, stressful and costly) is pulled out from your ass


File: 1489969625287.png (1.66 MB, 1463x1197, 1324210182517.png) ImgOps iqdb

FtM succubi already posted here in the past. Of course, those posts didn't stay up for long, so it isn't impressive that you didn't get to see them. The reason they cannot post here is much simple: They are female. There's no need to overthink such a simple matter.

I know for a fact that people cannot change their sex just as I know that they are incapable of changing their species. If you are able to do those things, please let me know. Maybe it's because I'm not 30 yet and therefore have yet to unlock those magical, reality-defying powers.


How about stop pretending I'm the person you fake-quoted.


Right, because you are just some stranger who gets irrationally upset about greentexting and have no dog in this fight. Very likely.


>MTFs keep coming here and saying "I'm a succubus on the inside and in reality but I have a right to come here because I only ever gave a couple of guys blowjobs
Gender and sexual orientation are two different things. Thus, your assumption that each and every MtF is sexually attracted to males is incorrect.


I admit that you're getting increasingly desperate with every post, to the point you've resorted to inventing things I admitted. Try again.


Sorry to burst your delusion, but there is more than one person in this thread.


Pretend all you want, you aren't convincing anyone with your samfagging routine on a dead slow site as this.


>your assumption that each and every MtF is sexually attracted to males is incorrect

Well of course, Chris Chan for example failed so many times at getting a gf that he started LARPing as a succubus and calling himself a lesbian.



Nice conspiracy. Ask a mod if you're that obsessed.


The medical definition of sex (which is useful in the medical sciences) is almost completely irrelevant when we are discussing social systems. Because you don't want to tell me that in order to find out what gender does that person met on the street might have, you have to check their chromosomes? Gender is a matter of declaration (and convincing people to respect that), just like sexual orientation is.

I am serious and I repeat my question: what are your sources on the psychological motivations for the transition?


>The medical definition of sex (which is useful in the medical sciences) is almost completely irrelevant when we are discussing social systems.
>Gender is a matter of declaration
What a self-defeating position. Then I declare that men are male, and succubi are female, and I must be right because I believe so. If reality is irrelevant and all that matters is what one thinks, then there is no way for you to argue that I am wrong.


How so? You can say whatever you want about other people, but you are not able to change their self-identities just because you say so. I like the colour red. You can say that deep down in my brain I REALLY like blue, not red. But the whole concept of favourite colours is that I decide what I like, not anyone else. Same for gender. It's constructed in a dialectical relation between subjective (how you perceive yourself) and intersubjective (how others perceive you, which includes how society is constructing certain body parts as "male" and others as "female"). There is nothing "objective" about it, essence does not precede existence. The "reality" you speak about is irrelevant because it can't say shit about human society. There are people who think that by observing mice in a labolatory one can predict the future of human civilization, but I am not one of them.


It's self defeating in the moment you then go on to assert something as holding truth value based on this premise. For example, you cannot tell me that a man is a succubus because he identifies as such after using that argument, since this is supposedly only a matter of opinion without any basis on reality. Your argument is actually an abandonment of the prospect of reaching an agreement over the identity of something through reason. Whether I believe myself to be a succubus, or a rock, or an animal, or that you are not human, that is all opinion. Taxonomy is a social construct, the classification of things too. If it is my opinion that the man who claims to be a succubus is actually a man, and everything is a spook as you argued, then what stops me from continuing to believe him to be a man and treating him accordingly? Your argument wasn't "MtF transsexuals are succubi", it was "sex is just a matter of opinion", which means you gave up on the ability to make an argument as to why an individual and a society must accept transsexuals as the sex they believe themselves to be. Certainly that man believes himself to be a succubus, as you might believe yourself to be a monkey. Your beliefs are yours, mine are mine, and since you believe that there is no truth to be reached but only subjective values, then there is nothing to be argued about to begin with. I wonder why there are people who vigorously argue that there is no truth to be argued about.

Of course I do not believe in this rubbish, it was just to show you that even if I agreed with you I wouldn't be wrong in believing transsexuals to be their actual biological sex. But there are real, biological differences between males and females. Much like taxonomy is a classification invented by humans that is grounded on biological reality, so is the existence of sexes, and whether a person is one or another. A man pretending to be a succubus is no more of a succubus than a horse is an unicorn if you put a cone on their head. That it is possible to separate males from females because these two sets of organs exist is evidence that they are real, that every society was built structured around this difference is an ever stronger argument that, rather than society being a set of random independent abstractions built by will and thought alone (and that even those are somehow free from any biological influence), biology shapes society.


Alright, you win on that round as I did commit to fallacy. But riddle me this if you are so adamant on the invalidity of men fully capable of becoming succubi, something I would to call "Schrödinger's Tranny":

If what appears to be a clothed succubus is seen on the street completely looking, acting, sounding like any other succubus you had seen before, then you would have no reason not to assume that such person was not just another succubus despite that they might have a penis in their pants, XY chromosomes, and grew up as a male until they received hormonal treatment and possibly surgery.

Keep in mind that the fact such a person passes as any other succubus might be is critically important, because that is the goal of what trannies are: Emulation – not forcing you to accept mental mind games of sex, gender, and identity. Now if you disagree and say "but that person is still male!", you would just be visually inaccurate and until you find more details, the same level of paranoia could be applied to every other succubus you see because generally people cannot see each other's genitals, chromosomes, and history at a glance.

Is it deceptive? Yes, but if a successful tranny passes, then it can be said that they can be just as normie as any other member of their sex and can be ignored.

>but no tranny is visually perfect, there are always giveaways!

Is just ignorance at the sheer amount of changes hormones are capable of, as well as surgery and makeup.

Again, trannies were something of a curiosity to study about so a lot of information is presented here contrary to common thought, but with enough hormonal treatment at the very least the changes would be drastic enough given enough time to induce levels of androgyny and full Average Wiz levels. Why do you think the "trap" meme ever came about if successful men as succubi never existed?


I'm really not sure exactly what you're getting at.

I have a feeling you are arguing from the premise that the people on this site are concerned with social interactions on a level and in a manner that most of us never will be; if someone who looked and behaved exactly like a succubus tried to interfere with my life I would feel the same bone-deep rage that I do when biological succubi bother me for no reason, and I would have the same indifference to anyone who was properly indifferent to me regardless of their chromosomes, true, but I can't imagine that having any particular significance, either personally or for the sake of abstract argument.

Let us assume that there is an individual with Down's Syndrome working at Wal Mart for less than minimum wage in one capacity or another, which his parents justify as giving him "the human dignity that comes with work." This individual does not demonstrate the majority of phenotypic issues with Down's; perhaps his extra chromosome does not interfere as much as usual with the normal expression of his genes, or perhaps some of the qualities are masked. Say they are part Asian so the epicanthic fold appears normal for their facial standards, and other physical issues look within the range of normalcy. This person goes about their business, does their job, does not misspeak or speak out of turn, and is able to direct customers either to the correct aisle for their requested wares. Passing is the end goal of work therapy for incurably disabled individuals. Under the circumstance that you are not able to tell that he has an extra chromosome, you would not treat him as though he had an extra chromosome; but he'd still be at substantially risk for heart failure, kidney failure, early onset dementia and would still never be able to perform all of the functions of a chromosomally healthy worker, and if one misled the Downie to believe that he would be able to function as a respected laborer with a world of opportunities and new possibilities opening up to him, then one has misled him, horribly. Once people realize that he is retarded they will treat him just like folklore says they treated Ned Ludd; his employers will beat him, his coworkers will mock him, and local children will throw stones at him. That Ned Ludd was able to function as labor and do a job which had once been reserved for skilled craftsmen would only have made this behavior worse, not better; that Ned Ludd functioned and passed for a not disabled man would make him a bigger target for the neurotypicals.

So whether someone passes under a cursory glance but cannot function identically in all circumstances they can probably expect to be treated like Ned Ludd, exploited and abused.

The male to female transgender individual cannot get pregnant and likely has a host of emotional and psychological problems, if for no other reason then at least as a consequence of their time as a male, an experience that no biological female could relate to which necessarily differentiates them from all bio fems. The rage that a skilled craftsman might feel at his work being relegated to Ned Ludds with the assistance of modern machinery is of a different character than the rage that a sexually driven individual might feel at the sexual presentation of the transgender, but they are both understandable when analyzed as a matter of self interest. The sexual individual reacts to, as you said, deception, in particular if they felt attracted to the MtF and considered investing resources into it, their instincts telling them "invest in order to start a family." I believe that most normalfags underestimate the extent to which they have a paternal drive, culture does tell them that they shouldn't after all, the mother deserves the kids after divorce because she has a maternal drive, it's succubi who are trying to rope Chad down when he just wants to be a player, whatever; but patriarchy developed to the extent that it did because it was natural and instinctive for fathers to invest in their sons and wish to hand their property down to their sons. So the tranny threatens the paternal/patriarchal drives and instincts, just as the retarded sub-minimum-wage worker threatens the livelihood of his coworkers. Passing, as a goal, does nothing to address this, just as a mentally disabled individual working for below minimum wage only becomes more of a threat if he does decent work.



The moral of the story being, nobody should ever work. Work is the death of the spirit, work is misery, work is drudgery, and work is, most damning of all, an interpersonal activity.
Also nobody should ever be female.


There is definitely merit to the concern for actual mental health as you said, beyond just passing alone. However while such person would undoubtedly have a host of internal issues, at the very least they've managed to integrate back into the normie world and be productive, acquiring value from their labor to be taxed and redistributed to fellow wizard NEETs.

Basically what I am getting to, is that it is just possible to have someone completely switch genders and that it would be visually inaccurate to categorize them as their birth sex if they've received hormone treatment, possible surgeries, and of course actually pass (a tall order, since most really don't pass in a fate worse than death hence the rightful suicide and depression rates).

Whether or not they still harbor other underlying mental illness could be interpreted as an unfortunate part of life that normal people could have – depression, anxiety, infertility. Transitioning for these people offers a critical relief, not an end-all cure of all their problems. In short your worker, while inferior in every way but at least seeming competent, could at least be content in their role they have fulfilled to their fullest capabilities and not as entirely a lost cause. Very, very few people are perfect anyways statistically speaking, so in effect there is just an unexpectedly possible means of massively improving quality of life but not necessarily a means of making it perfect. Fair enough, really.

As far as the "patriarchy" goes, I must confess that I had gotten equally lost in understanding with that point. True, a tranny cannot have children, but oh well. The same misfortune could be applied to people who are naturally infertile, and honestly, someone with as much mental illness as being a tranny is better off not being a parent. Imagine the thought of one of your parents to be trans. The very notion would is disgusting and no doubt would be detrimental to the development of any "healthy" individual, as far as normie standards go.

In the end, the very normies a wizard fears can be used to their advantage by NEETbux, as long as they leave a wizard alone and in peace. That is why political shenanigans such as these still concern wizards.


>For example, you cannot tell me that a man is a succubus because he identifies as such after using that argument, since this is supposedly only a matter of opinion without any basis on reality.
There is no "reality". If I say I like the colour red, you have absolutely no means to prove me that I'm wrong. Liking colours is entirely based on opinions. But somehow nobody seems to have a problem with that.

>Your argument is actually an abandonment of the prospect of reaching an agreement over the identity of something through reason.

You believe in gender essentialism (albeit not in colour essentalism), I do not. You confuse your own particular paradigm with reason itself.

>Whether I believe myself to be a succubus, or a rock, or an animal, or that you are not human, that is all opinion.

Yes, but is your opinion strong enough to challenge the social construct of humanness? I don't think it is the case now. In the past, however, there were some instances where people believed that it is possible for certain persons, to transcend their "species" and to become animals.
If people defined this situations as real, it was real in their consequences. (Again, we are talking about societal level of analysis, not about biology). As for the future: have you not heard of TRANShumanism? There are people who are literally waiting to copy their minds into machines. When that comes, we will all became transspecies and we won't ask your "reality" for approval.

>you believe that there is no truth to be reached but only subjective values, then there is nothing to be argued about to begin with.

Do you really want to argue that even if I said I like red, I must like blue?

>But there are real, biological differences between males and females.

I did not deny that.

>That it is possible to separate males from females because these two sets of organs exist is evidence that they are real

Body parts cannot have genders. There is nothing inherently male about penis and there is nothing inherently female about a vagina, just like there is nothing female about a doll and nothing male about a car.

>that every society was built structured around this difference

First of all, not every:
Second: yes, some social facts are so powerful they become perceived as a "natural", ahistorical foundations of everything (private propoert was seen by vulgar politcal economists as immutable, eternal category. Is it? No.). I do agree that our bodies exerts powerful influence over us. But we are by no means determined what we are going to do about it.


Not a lot of effort or relevance in this post, but I enjoyed it.
Is your red necessarily the same as my red?
If you don't accept some baseline reality and operate from that assumption this all becomes solipsistic nonsense.


Ignorance regarding the properties of some thing does not change its nature. For a variety of reasons right now, such as the capacity of abstract thought and the ability to write, I assume that you are human. If you you revealed yourself to be a bot or an alien I would act on the new information. The fact that I believed you do be something and then it turned out you were something else once I discovered other things about you is not a proof that reality is fake. Rather, it is only evidence that I'm not omniscient.


Your point is? "Red is the color at the longer-wavelengths end of the spectrum of visible light next to orange, at the opposite end from violet, therefore gender is biological"?
I accept intersubjective reality and conventional perception of redness (roses are red for example). The difference is that liking certain colours wasn't used as an excuse to perpetuate murder, slavery, oppression, conscription, rape, bullying, etc. and strict adherence to roles that harms the individual. I admit it's also a political project directed at emancipation of the individual. But so the whole biological discourse, except it's being disguised as an objective science.


>There is no "reality". If I say I like the colour red
>Do you really want to argue that even if I said I like red, I must like blue?
We're not arguing about likes or dislikes, but about categories and their basis on reality. By denying the existence of "reality" itself you forgo any possibility of an agreement. If every individual has their own "reality" then I am right merely because I believe so. Your position stops you from actually arguing for anything.

>is your opinion strong enough to challenge the social construct of humanness

>If people defined this situations as real, it was real in their consequences.
Yes, my argument is strong enough. No, opinions do not change the nature of reality. Consider the statement "a man, without the use of any apparatus, is incapable of flight." You might challenge the meaning of the word "flight", but that would be merely semantics. If, on agreement about what those words mean, you told me "man is capable of flying towards the sky by merely shaking his arms" you would be wrong, regardless of your particular delusions. Individuals or societies do not change the physical laws that govern gravitation, much like they cannot change the nature that governs their own biology.

>Body parts cannot have genders.

>Second: yes, some social facts are so powerful they become perceived as a "natural", ahistorical foundations of everything (private propoert was seen by vulgar politcal economists as immutable, eternal category. Is it? No.). I do agree that our bodies exerts powerful influence over us. But we are by no means determined what we are going to do about it.
Depends on what you mean by "gender". In my language, "penis" is a word of the grammatical male gender, while "vagina" is a word of the grammatical female gender. Let make ourselves more specific here: I believe that what you are talking about when you say "gender" is the ideas common to a society that relate to how an individual is categorized. Is that correct? If not, please tell. In that case, you are still wrong. Every society was structure around the existence of two sexes. Effeminate men being treated as succubi or eunuchs being treated differently are merely outliers, you could've cited the example of intersex people as "proof" that sex doesn't exist and you would be equally wrong about that. The reason every society was structured around the existence of two sexes is because they are a natural reality. You've admitted that our bodies exert influence over us, that means you are yet to completely lose your grasp of reality. The "social aspect" isn't an arbitrary creation that exists merely because humans willed it out of nowhere. Men and succubi exist, and that is a fundamental aspect of our biology. Culture, society, civilization, that is all a development based on and delimited by the nature that governs us.


>We're not arguing about likes or dislikes, but about categories and their basis on reality.
That's why I said "reality", that is something completely external and beyond our influence. As long a as there are humans, we cannot exclude subjective element when analyzing social facts

>Individuals or societies do not change the physical laws that govern gravitation, much like they cannot change the nature that governs their own biology.

I am not arguing against biology. It is you who constantly brings that subject as if it's overriding an entire social sphere. We can't study the phenomenon of love among human beings because biology! According to biology it is just a chemical imbalance and evolutionary desire to propagate our genes, it's all we should know about love, right?.

>Is that correct? If not, please tell.

Gender is:
1) an idea that divides people into two groups, males and females, based on characteristics such as body parts, behaviours, emotions, what they wear etc. and the notion that gender can be diagnosed by external observation.
2) self-identity, which any person can posses

>you could've cited the example of intersex people as "proof" that sex doesn't exist and you would be equally wrong about that.

Great example. Because instead of accepting biology's verdict and just letting them being untouched intersex's people genitals are often surgically changed into shapes and sizes that do conform to society's preconceived notions of what a "succubus" or a "boy" should look like. But we all know that by changing their biology we actually conform to real, correct biology.


>That's why I said "reality", that is something completely external and beyond our influence.
>I am not arguing against biology.
It's precisely what you're doing when you pretend that it has no effect. Biology supposedly exists because you do sound crazy if you deny that much, but in order to continue indulging in your fantasies you declare that it only exists in a plane completely separate from what humans think, how they behave, how societies evolve, and so on. Did I deny the fact that, say, the color pink being considered feminine or masculine is merely cultural? No, but you denied that gender has biological roots. In fact, the latter part of my post where I finished with "culture, society, civilization, that is all a development based on and delimited by the nature that governs us" went unanswered by you.

>Great example.

It is indeed great insofar it illustrates some failures of your arguments. That is why I cited it to begin with, I'm not unfamiliar with your ideology. You usually cite intersex people in order to make a point about how sex doesn't actually exists, without thinking about the variety of medical conditions that people are born with. People born without limbs, deformed, mentally crippled or with other terrible diseases. In short, people who were born with defects are not a challenge to what a human is, much like being born intersex is not a challenge to the fact that humans are male or female and that this has roots in biology. A building that comes down because of a structural failure does not require a review of our definition of what a structure is in order to include it, rather it is proof of what it isn't. A pile of rubble isn't a building and physical defects are just that, defects.


Biology and material world exists. But it has no meaning, it does not govern, act or think. Only humans do. That's the whole point about social sciences. Reality isn't "out there", because if it were, we wouldn't need to invent these sciences. Try to explain the origins of capitalism with terms of biology or physics. After all, all development is based on and delimited by the nature that governs us. Understanding something on the cell-level, for example, mitosis, does not (on its own) help one understand things on the human-level and vice-versa. In all your posts you can't seem to understand it:
>People born without limbs
legitimate statement, both societal and biological level of analysis
>people who were born with defects
objection! this is value-laden statement that makes sense only on societal level of analysis. In fact, sometimes it's a defect, sometimes it's not. In some primitive societies, people with deformities or with - as we moderns would say - mental illnesses were regarded as very respectable persons, capable of communicating with spirits. Of course you'll say "no, no, they were just insane because science says so", even though the same science has nothing to say about modern religious practices. Why does a catholic person talking to God is regarded as normal, but a person talking to spirits of his ancestors crazy? I am sure biology would help us unravel this mystery.


And when I think we're about to make a breakthrough, you revert back to stating that reality doesn't matter because even if it exists it somehow does not affect us.

>Biology and material world exists. But it has no meaning, it does not govern, act or think.

Are you religious? Do you believe that the brain is only a vessel for an immaterial soul that is equal to every other and independent from the matter it finds itself in? Because that is the only reason you might believe in what you just said.

Matter thinks. It is called brain. The processes through which it operates gives rise to such things as intelligence, sentience, behavior patterns, and so on. The same is true for the body, it has its own set of characteristics that shaped how various societies developed and continue to develop. It is so that, in humans, there are two sexes. When various individuals find themselves forming a society, they remain just as bound to their biology as a single human does. The striking general difference between males and females leads to the creation of social dynamics that regulate both sexes. A society that expected men to give birth, for example, would soon die out, while the society where succubi are expect to give birth would continue to thrive, leaving the latter to carry its "bias" forward. The same is true for the body; a society that developed a culture of mutilating the thumbs would, at the very best, never develop further than other apes. This is an obvious example of the intrinsic and inseparable interactions between culture and biology. Such things explain many matters of life, and they do not need to be so radical as the examples I gave. As I said, culture, society, civilization, that is all based and delimited by nature. It is the explanation to why every single society that developed beyond the neolithic has been patriarchal, for example. When you say that gender is merely a "social construct" you are mistaking humans for free souls that live outside of natural reality.


>Matter thinks.
OK, I'm done, you can call yourself winner if you want. I, however, want to end this discussion by linking a nice book which describes a proper methodology of social sciences, because you clearly have no idea what it is. Read (I know you won't do it) especially parts on materialism and scientism:



I'm more acquainted with what Mises wrote than you give me credit for.



>By Jared Bernstein and Ben Spielberg


Anyways in all seriousness, as much as I hate wageslaving, the welfare state and welfare attitude needs to go. Ideally NEETs would rely on their parents (incidentally what I did until I was kicked out), and not the teat of the government and tax payers which weakens everybody.


If it was Ted Cruz forcing all this christianity and welfare-cutting down my throat, I could somewhat tolerate it. Hes a fanatic Christian and thats what he beleives. And as a volcel I have some respect for genuine fanatic christians.

But having the pussy-grabber Miss Universe monger force the Ted Cruz program on me is hell.


Now I know what a Cathar must have felt like being burned at the stake by some sexhaving chad Pope in the name of the Holy Church


These threads are always so shit


Honestly, I expected much, much, worse.


File: 1490301599843.jpg (37.23 KB, 780x291, jobbik-magyarorszagert.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Proud Jobbik party member.


Jobbik is a pro-life party full of normies


More like pro-white.


Good luck with your "people's party"


Majority of whites are normies


What are you implying? The majority of all races are normies, skin colour irrelevant

If anything, niggers and shitskins are more normie than white normies


File: 1490304970691.jpg (Spoiler Image, 557.16 KB, 1228x921, Magyar_Gárda_Kórus.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Majority of people are normies. Being a joinfag for anything is ridiculously normie. I do find it pretty entertaining that Jobbik members LARP as cops, though.


>The majority of all races are normies
Indeed, this is why you shouldn't support a pro-life(or whites) party


That is the Jobbik choir and it consists of older members. Jobbik is more prevalent with the youth and some 52% of Hungarian youth approve of the party and the party will hold a majority in the coming years.


That was a good talk.


Infowars dismissing false ops terrorist attacks conspiracies as loony?

Now thats irony!!



>Peter "Can't Go Wrong With Gold, Goy" Schiff

I'm not saying that Peter is wrong, but it bothers me how much he shills his own gold service. It's just so obvious he intents to capitalize in the event of a federal crash which he's been calling FOR YEARS, only to be mistaken time and time again.

>b-but he got the last bubble right!

A broken clock is right twice a day, and if you realize that Peter has literally been at his shtick for years, every year, then he's bound to get lucky eventually.

Not to mention that gold has been performing horribly lately, but what can you do? It's the feds fault, don't look at me, goyim.

Yeah it was a good talk, but the blatant gold shilling was too much. He didn't even mention bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, just straight gold my shit up. Shameless.


File: 1490326529176.gif (55.6 KB, 446x600, 278316.gif) ImgOps iqdb

>A broken clock is right twice a day, and if you realize that Peter has literally been at his shtick for years, every year, then he's bound to get lucky eventually.

It's not even that really. Capitalism, and especially globalized capitalism, is always in some bubble, and that bubble is always about to burst. The whole thing is a sinking ship that keeps getting bilged out and patched just in time for somebody to knock another hole in the side. Speculation has become a bloated mess, accounting for nearly 9% of the overall US economy, and 20% of the global economy.
The constant boom and bust cycles are necessary for the continued functioning of the system. New markets must be opened, and new sources of cheap labor and resources must continue to be created. Boom and bust is how the system does these things. "The" bubble is always about to burst, and when it does, another one will take its place, because Capital has to circulate for the system to function, and people will always clamor to take advantage of the newly impoverished, who lost out in the most recent "bust". They become the new bubble, and the source of the next "boom".

Gold is considered to be a relatively stable investment, because its relative rarity, and lack of intrinsic value means that it (generally) doesn't wind up in as many "new technology" related speculative bubbles. But that's all it really is, and with dickweed speculator scum like Peter Schiff and Glenn Beck constantly pumping up gold as the only safe option in this new era of ultrafear, we actually have seen it wind up in a speculative bubble, which completely negates its value as a stable investment.


Blaming capitalism is short sighted. If it was merely "capitalism" they wouldn't need government to create the boom by getting the interest rates ever lower. "Capitalism" works in cycles because it's not free market capitalism. A bubble in a free market is at its very worst a local thing that only affects a sector, while a monetary bubble is linked to everything in the economy. Western governments have been trying to "make the economy grow" through monetary magic for decades and they never learn that all they're doing is create fake prosperity.


Aside from obvious loans programs (like student-debt) the government doesn't really create these bubbles, so much as they feebly attempt to manage them with the 2 or 3 tools that they actually have at their disposal. We've seen from bitcoin and all those other alt-currencies (remember etherium?) that taking fiat out of the equation doesn't magically solve the issue of speculation and bubbles. These aren't large scale cases, but they are pretty indicative of the constant that is human greed.
Either way, the system overall will always require constant growth, and that means both new markets, and new sources of cheap resources/labor. There's a couple of ways to get that. The first is warfare, either world war, or a series of localized destructive conflicts. The second is constant boom and bust. We don't see it as much in the west, because we're at the top of the food chain, but these boom-bust cycles can and do actually destroy the economies of entire nations, and thereby open them up to foreign investment. Natural disasters to this as well, but those can't be predicted or controlled as easily.

Western nations keep propping up these bubbles on some level, this is true. They haven't been creating them though, and they'll usually only start trying to maintain them, or wind them down, when they're already at crisis level. And again, they only have a handful of tools by which to solve these issues.
The big problem is that they've been trying to keep their economies afloat without actually facing the dual realities of "if your people don't produce anything, the global economy can't pay them anything" and "the global economy desires/requires relative poverty from its productive workers". Nobody wants to have an underclass of factory workers getting fucked over and waiting for the next Lenin, but the only way around that is to pump up the currency artificially, and flood the economy with cheap baubles from elsewhere.


A minor derailment in a music thread >>13733 reminded me of a blog post I read almost a decade ago.


This was written before the Housing Market Crash, before Occupy Wall Street, before the Obama election. Hell, this was written before Bush's second term. I only barely registered it when I first read it; I was a student and I identified as as right winger and principled Libertarian. But there was a kernel of understanding which has grown.

As a principled rightwing libertarian (I got over it), I hated the Iraq War even as lefties I had known and expected different from fell into line over it. I was never willing to seriously entertain socialist ideas or ideals, but the Iraq War, I thought, was something where all of these lefties I knew on campus would finally agree with me. None of them did. Not one. This was in California for fuck's sake, if there was going to be a strong antiwar movement it would be born here, or not at all. Welp. That actually shook me up; I had previously thought that the Left exerted a total and dogmatic influence over its adherents' concept of morality, and seeing individual lefties shed their principles for the sake of momentary convenience like that was a little terrifying, in a "these people have no ethics at all" kind of way. Seeing Lefties eventually grow into opposing the Iraq War, at about the same rate that Donald Trump did, did absolutely nothing to make me see them as honest and principled; if they had held principles they would have held them even at the risk of agreeing with me and being unpopular.

In the online discussion which linked me to that blog, I vaguely recall one of the comments being a particularly cruel dismissal, that the author is a "creepy old virgin who clings to comic books and juvenile fantasy fiction because he will never have a girlfriend," or something similarly vicious yet similarly off-subject, and I remember a nontrivial number of those who had felt moved by his essay suddenly backing off to avoid guilt by association. I don't know if it's true or not that he is a virgin, but for what it's worth from what I recall his blog was full of essays about comic books, history, fantasy, religion and politics, and never mentioned any relationships at all with the exception of a few online-only livejournal buddies.

Both of these things seem like an absolute reinforcement of the author's point. The moral confusion and disarray of the Left has abandoned principles in favor of popularity, at the price of all opposition to Power. Capitalism gets popular, yay capitalism, thank you mighty job creators truly Silicon Valley is the Left's greatest ally and the only problem any Lefty could have with the tech sector is that there are not enough succubi and minorities in the positions of Thief and Exploiter because nobody on the left could have a principled objection to the relationship between economic classes, only to racial and sexual castes; meanwhile the dignity of the workers and peasants that the Left once championed is ground into dirt.

I didn't really understand at the time. But now I am a wageslave, and now I understand him better, and I too think those old Trades Unionist, Socialist, Communist, Anarcho-Syndicalist songs show a Left that we have lost, and that loss has diminished us in ways which are not fully appreciated even by today's Communists.


>Aside from obvious loans programs (like student-debt)
The most obvious "program" is the interest rates.

>We've seen from bitcoin and all those other alt-currencies (remember etherium?) that taking fiat out of the equation

They didn't. national currencies are legal tender, you must accept them.

>Either way, the system overall will always require constant growth

That is not true, you are simply repeating that as a fact that you heard somewhere else. Truth be told, capitalism in its broad sense doesn't require growth at all.

>They haven't been creating them

Despite every single monetary bubble being created by economists since economists started running the economy.

You are analyzing the economy on faulty theory. Drop marxism.


>That is not true, you are simply repeating that as a fact that you heard somewhere else. Truth be told, capitalism in its broad sense doesn't require growth at all.
As population increases, the demand for resources increases. There is a requirement for all those new people to eat, and live. That means jobs, and that means production. That means the system must grow.

>Despite every single monetary bubble being created by economists since economists started running the economy.

Our biggest bubbles aren't strict currency bubbles. There's normally some private sector hard asset element, like Tech/IPO, or Housing, or Uranium, or Tulips. Sure, currency bubbles are caused by the controllers of the currency, but unless you've got some magical new currency that these groups can't control, that isn't exactly going to change. Most of what the currency controllers do is reactive to the immediate realities that present themselves. They aren't creating these asset bubbles, they're trying to control them so they won't do too much damage.


>I didn't really understand at the time. But now I am a wageslave, and now I understand him better, and I too think those old Trades Unionist, Socialist, Communist, Anarcho-Syndicalist songs show a Left that we have lost, and that loss has diminished us in ways which are not fully appreciated even by today's Communists.
I might sound too tinfoil when I pin the some of the blame on CIA and FBI's COINTELPRO infiltration and sabotage, probably trying to pull things farther and farther away from the original focus on the inherent problems of wageslavery, essentially neutering it.
Shouldn't explain everything, but a significant part.


File: 1490367478967.jpg (141.05 KB, 500x733, 7598758.jpg) ImgOps iqdb


I don't understand, is "Russia" the almighty boogeyman now because they're not as progressive as them? I don't personally trust the Russians either, but I do respect their culture and how much they've kept integrity and dignity intact without submitting to rapefugees and other silly nonsense. I feel the same way towards a lot of the other Eastern European nations.

What exactly would be Russia's end game at this point? WW3 can't ever happen because of nukes, so it is it just a culture war? They don't want strong men with balls and instead with artificially made succubi-holes housing refugees?

The Russians were the big dog commies of europe – socialists – and yet the progressive socialists seem to paint them as the enemy when their means of equality remains the same.

It is all so confusing with these conflicting propaganda, and while I still don't 100% trust Russia, I trust them a hell of a lot more than the fucking progressives of Europe. That says a lot.


It makes sense that progressive socialists censure Russia because the soviet union was a huge failure in the end, no? Lots of them consider themselves humanitarian and there's no denying the USSR's crimes against humanity.


Oh no, not superpower lobbying!
Remember it's only bad when not-america does it.


But don't you see? There is great irony ins that because if they understood WHY the USSR failed, it was not because of their ruthless crimes against humanity, it was because socialism is doomed to fail, humanitarian or not. In fact, the USSR's aggressive nature probably helped them last as long as they did, because they could cut the weak of their society and manage everything with an iron fist, not a manicured hand.


>What exactly would be Russia's end game at this point?
Well, the obvious thing is to reform the power bloc that they had under the Soviet Union, and I think that's been Putin's dream/plan for most of his 16 year presidency. All the culture stuff is just window dressing that nobody above a certain level in their internal system actually gives a shit about. That certain level seems to be pretty fucking low, by the way. Islam is the biggest nothing of all this, 15% of Russian citizens are at least culturally muslim, with between 5 and 10 percent being active practitioners. Putin does all the "religion of peace" crap that Bush did, and is actually quite personally chummy with the current leadership of Chechnya. They're not hardline fascists or ideologues over there. They're authoritarians, and particularly pragmatic ones, at that. If "doing liberalism" somehow became useful or convenient for them, they'd do it. It's not right now, so they don't. That simple.

You can trust Russia to want their Soviet borders back, and you can trust Russia to want an equal seat at the table with the EU, US, and China, when it comes to trade and security matters. You can trust them to want their Warsaw Pact buffer as well, but you can usually also trust that they're not stupid enough to think that's realistic. Beyond those very pragmatic geopolitical elements, you should probably just assume that they're playing games and doing what's convenient, especially if they're telling you something directly, and in a language that isn't Russian.


Right, I certainly don't disagree with you.


What you've said is all true, but with everything considered, that just appears to be in line with a nation acting in their best interests – a perfectly natural and reasonable means for a nation to act towards to.

They know that they will never reach the same level of superpower relevance they once had, because the development of nukes make any kind of global aggression simply moot among developed countries. No, the concern in the modern era is not an external one but internal, that is if a nation can economically maintain and preserve themselves against each other. This is were the EU comes in, and why the Germans have now cleverly made an attempt towards economic and progressive domination instead of blood and steel.

With that in mind, actual borders by nationalities can predictably remain to be fixed at this point, and the level of "Russian threat" that everybody seems to panic about is simply ridiculous. Have we not gone past the Cold War? It just baffles me how much they still try and pin it all on Russia.

Sure, they are authoritarian, but that is how they've always done things. It is the Russian way, and that's fine. Now I'm not saying Russia is harmless or should be ignored, but to the extent at which Russia is somehow the mastermind of all our problems instead of the much realer social norms and socialism under our noses is downright sad.

These misguided anti-Russian propaganda just baffle me. I just don't know what to think about them anymore, and to see it so often in the news deeply concerns me. At this point, it's like they want the Russians to do something evil for the sake of it so all our internal problems can be conveniently redirected away to an external source.


>that just appears to be in line with a nation acting in their best interests – a perfectly natural and reasonable means for a nation to act towards to.
No argument there, it's perfectly natural for them to act in this way. My issue is that there's a hell of a lot of people who seem to think that Putin has some grand plan to save Europe, by creating a ton of independent ethnostates, that will bring about the fourth reich or something.
His plan seems to be to trash the EU, so they can't compete with Russia economically. That's about as far as the plan goes. Ethnostates are the simplest way to do that, because you can have Hungarians and Slovakians ganging up on Romanians, who suddenly want to go after Bulgarians, and then Austria and Germany group up, so suddenly Poland and France flip shit over it. Or something more realistic than that. None of this would lead to open warfare of course, but it would probably lead to boycotts on certain products or resources that Russia would be the most immediate secondary source of. It would also take a player off the board, which would allow Russia to economically and politically "reach out to" places like Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, and a couple of the other little Russian speaking bits and bobs dotted around.

Point being, he doesn't really give a shit about Europe, or the nationalists that he's supporting there. In the US, Russia Today was all about Black Lives Matter and the early (left-wing) Anonymous. They were left leaning. In Europe, they're right leaning. A few months ago, they were all about Trump. Now they're trashing him every other day. The Russians want pieces off the board, they don't care what happens to the people who have to clean up the mess after the fact.
How the USA fits into this is the rather confusing element. My immediate thought is that it really is just oil, since we're one of the bigger oil producers in the world, and so are they. But you might be right, and it might just be the need for an external boogeyman. They obviously would rather have us doing our own thing, while they do theirs, but who knows whether that's going to happen, especially where Saudi-Arabia is concerned. They're up there with us, when it comes to oil production.


>[Putin] doesn't really give a shit about Europe, or the nationalists that he's supporting there.

Exactly! Thank you so much for being able to see the bullshit just as I've seen it, wizard, you have no idea how frustrating it is seeing blatant lies spouted everywhere else while the truth is so obvious.

From what I've seen, Putin is a man acting in the best interest of his country, which makes sense given he's their fucking president. Their own propaganda obviously reflects this, but that's expected and that's how it should be to keep their country strong. These globalists see national interests only as barriers against their own, seeking to submit the most out of other people into their will. It's all so horribly, utterly disgusting, and clearly goes against the spirit of a free nation's freedom to dictate their destiny.

To be clear, nationalism in the past lead to wars and all sorts of disasters. Now in the post-nuclear age, it is nationalism that holds the culture and spirit of a country instead of an artificial monstrosity heralded as the next best thing. Those individul ethnostates will wise up and act in accordance of their own interests, and the result is the very same diversity that the globalists claim to cherish and not crush. Putin will do as he pleases, but other nations should be able to do the same instead of sucking the EU's dick and pushing the agenda – with one country benefiting the most than the others.

As far the middle-east goes, it's a mixed bag of mess that can hardly be addressed appropriately without going deep into root causes. Oil being one of them, it's a tricky situation that requires careful navigation. No doubt such navigation would be towards just causes instead of petty excuses and obvious bias as they usually report it as.


I know this might be preaching to the choir here given the political inclinations expressed so far by other wizards in this thread, but I must ask what has been bothering me in my head in laymen's terms:

Is there any way to justify liberalism without resorting to emotional appeals?

Very clearly and very obviously then the only merit liberalism might hold is that if socialism works – but then upon knowing that socialism doesn't work, what does it have left? Just feelings? I wish to understand in the simplest terms possible but it's proving to be greatly difficult. All I can really see so far is that the promise of "free" stuff seems appealing to anyone at first, but if a system is knowingly economically self-destructive why would it matter? Is it short-sightedness or misplaced goodwill taken advantage by politicians to excuse excessive taxation?

As a drop-out, this is all so very confusing. Maybe they prefer it that way to deter people from asking too many questions…



Well there are several things that are meant by the word "liberalism" and they all contradict each other, so liberalism as some sort of grand design or coherent notion cannot work.

The things that are meant by Liberalism are, generally:
–Bismarckian Welfare Statism, originally intended to incentivize laborers to remain in Germany rather than emigrate to nations where wages were higher, essentially offering benefits rather than wages as a solution to national competition. Welfare in America can be seen as a response to national competition with the Soviet Union, and has been analyzed in that light fairly often. As another example, Reinhardt Heydrich implemented state-guaranteed unemployment insurance in the regions he governed under the Nazi state, likely to prevent the conquered people from causing undue trouble if they found themselves both conquered and unemployed with little to lose and no love for their overlords.
–A Citizen's Income, similar to the Roman Grain dole or modern Universal Basic Income proposals where citizenship confers the right to certain state-owned resources regardless of personal conditions–this is done in Alaska with oil money, the oil belongs to the citizens of Alaska and the big oil companies pay each citizen a few hundred bucks a month for the right to pump it, essentially offering wages or benefits as a privilege of citizenship rather than a solution to a specific problem. There is no element of bribery to a citizen's income, and thus no incentive against working.
–State Capitalism, the government actually operating enterprises intended to accumulate capital, nominally for the benefit of the people, as though the Alaskan government were drilling, pumping and transporting the People's Oil.
–Expansion of the legal Commons. Today "intellectual property" is considered one of the more intense arenas for this particular fight which wizards might actually be familiar with, but in the past there were issues with various privatizations, going back even before the Inclosures Acts.

The things that are not commonly meant by "liberalism" today include:
–Classical Liberalism. This is the thing Marxists call Liberalism, generally expressed with phrases like "fuck liberals" and "I fucking hate liberals." This is also what Libertarians sometimes call Liberalism, generally expressed with phrases like "I actually consider myself very liberal," and "I'm a liberal in every sense that actually matters."
–Anarchism, liberty from hierarchy and domination. Nestor Makhno couldn't make this into a thing that exists in reality and it seems like nobody since Makhno even made a halfhearted attempt. Sometimes people call the peaceful hippie variety of anarchists "liberals" or "hippie liberals," but that is inaccurate, hippie liberals are the hippies who smoke weed because they enjoy life and weed helps them keep on enjoying life, hippie anarchists are the hippies who smoke weed to quiet down the urge to set pacifism aside and begin bombing factories.

There are some very strong similarities and relationships between all of these things. The Bismarckian welfare state and the Citizen's Income form are both forms of national competition, incompatible with any form of international, extranational, or antinational socialism. State Capitalism and expansion of the Commons both involve the use of state power to enforce a model of property which is nominally intended to make resources available to the people, though in different ways, and are by necessity incompatible with a stateless, classless, capital-less society, as a state maintains and guarantees the commons, and capital and a working class are necessary to a state capitalist enterprise.

However, State Capitalism is ultimately incompatible with the expansion of the Commons, for the same reason that privatization is; a "no trespassing" sign, fences and guards posted outside the state's capitalist enterprise to preserve the state's capital investment are just as fencing and guarding as rentacops protecting a private capital investment. Likewise the Welfare State exists to catch special cases and special conditions that the state deems worthy of support whereas a citizen's income is deemed the inherent right of the citizen without special circumstances or justification necessary; "Of course Roman citizens get grain, Rome is the greatest nation on Earth and its citizens are the greatest citizens on Earth." "Alaskan oil belongs to Alaskans, that just makes sense."

Likewise the justifications for all of these things are different. The Bismarckian Welfare State acts as a guarantor of social stability at theoretically low cost since the number of recipients is low rather than universal. State capitalism, well why shouldn't the State invest and seek return on the public's state-invested Capital, the laws against state speculation in America are a fairly recent phenomenon. Citizenship is a duty and a burden, in fulfilling one's duties and carrying burdens one has a right to expect compensation, how much you are paid for performing your duties as citizen reflects how much good citizenship is worth to those for whom said duties are performed. And people have always argued and disagreed over what should be held in res publica and what ought to be private and personal.


Why did 4chan evolve from cyberanarchist libertarianism to neofascist traditionalism?

Why are internet memesters telling us to go back to Church and stop fapping?


They wanted to be wild and free freaksters at 1st, that attracted them to right-libertarianism and Hitler was thrown in for shock value.

As they learned to internalize inequality as the core value of capitalism, it was only natural that they would expand to other inequalities such as race, sex and civilization. Instead of celebrating their superiority as individuals it became the superiority of white christian male civilization.



4chan illustrates the Burkean Conservative insight that radical individualist anarchy ultimately concludes in a cruder authoritarianism under the heel of a charismatic strongman


Whoever is telling you that isn't a real NatSoc. Christianity is a Jewish meme, like all Abrahamic religions.


Genuinely insightful observation, I had never thought about it that way before.

No doubt elements of the former chaotic nature still remain in chan culture, naturally, but the transition from right-libertarianism to National Socialism seems all the more plausible now as an inherent inevitability rather than an evolution in edginess from younger generations. Seems fair enough, really.

I wonder where Wizchan will fit into this, if it even fits at all or if it ever bothered to.


I don't understand why do you believe that the idea that people are unequal leads to the conclusion of an authoritarian dictatorship. A couple of libertarian thinkers already said that people and groups of people are different.


File: 1490772178186.png (64.69 KB, 1315x192, singlemotherexperience.png) ImgOps iqdb

I doubt wizchan will fit in anywhere, but I like ethno-nationalism because that will lead to the most groid deaths the quickest. I am not even referring about the muds or the jews right now, because before that there would have to be a lot of Breiviks running around killing white groids. That's what I want. A bunch of university students and political youths get killed? It would be the highlight of my day. Because I am tired of predictability. Besides, there's enough chads and succubus around already, I have no desire to be showered in even more chads and succubus just because muds want to be the ultimate breeders.



So you are a paleoconservative.


I think he's just bored. Like a lot of political extremists, he's bored and wants something exciting to happen so he can watch it on Youtube, cheer/egg on the participants in some chan or discord server, and then forget all about it once the retards who actually got involved have been arrested or killed. Not exactly rare.


That's what I think when I see the polkids writing things like "dehumanize yourself". I guess what they omit is the "while I keep shitposting" part.


I do not really care about economic models, although I do think that excessive state control of something has negative effects. What is important to me is ethno-nationalism. I live in a comfortably small country, with a little population and beautiful nature and I do not want any foreign invaders here filling up this land with more groids. Also, they bring nothing but trouble and integation problems with them.

Of course, in imageboards we are all mostly equal, but above is my take on real life.

If you want to accuse me of being le evil /pol/ack, I do not care.


Could you say that the absolute freedom of 4chan was too much for them to existentially handle so they felt a need to subordinate themselves to a higher power? To relinquish the dread responsibility of being absolutely free and absolutely responsible.


Ukip isn't far-right.


I've had the same views long before I ever even used imageboards (or forums or had an Internet connection) and I have to hide them because I get screamed at for being /pol/ now. Pretty frustrating at times but not much I can do about it.


I think there's a hell of a lot going on with /pol/, and while people might come to these lines of thinking for different reasons, the sort of people who hang out on /pol/ tend to do it for a very specific reason. They're kind of their own little section, and I often wonder about the degree to which they actually give a shit about anything at all.
I was recently around there while a "happening" thread was going on, and the degree to which they reveled in the personal economic steamrolling of idiots who genuinely believed in previous "happenings" was really quite astounding. Some dude blew 2500 euros on food and gear and shit, because he thought the Shemitah (some kind of jewish holiday cum apocalypse) was coming. Nothing but laughter. Another dude dropped out of school to focus on survivalist training. He was screencapped, for use as a running joke later on.

The amount of blatant hatred that people on /pol/ seem to hold for the nations and people that they're supposed to be the vanguard defenders of is amazing. When fundamentalist Christians have a problem with somebody, they do the whole "I'll pray for your soul" thing, and the "I don't want you to go to hell" thing. These guys don't do that. To them, if you're not on-board at a level that is pretty unrealistic, you deserve to be killed.

When people don't want x or y group coming into their country, I get it. I think it's unrealistic long-term, and I think they're being unfair, by painting with a broad brush, but I get it. There's an internal logic there. What I see with /pol/ isn't coherent, or logical. It's like they just worked out that they believe in nothing and hate everybody, probably including themselves, and are working backwards from that, to find an ideology that fits. They can't explain how, specifically, turning their personal hatreds into public policy will lead to a better world, so they just scream about kikes and niggers until people leave them alone. It's a really weird group of people on /pol/. Half of them aren't even white.


You've put a lot of my own thoughts I've had for a long, long time far better than I ever could.
People who tend to be into "white nationalism" with its imagery and trappings (especially Nazi crap) are almost without exception non-whites or weird edge cases. It attracts people with a chip on their shoulder or something to prove.
I should point out that /pol/ used to be a lot more of a forum with different ideas being thrown around where it was possible to have a discussion, I'm not sure where all the borderline insane screaming and paranoia came from but I wouldn't be surprised if it had been pushed in that direction by outside forces. It's quite easy to manipulate disenfranchised people by pandering to their emotional needs and discrediting them from the inside. Fringe parties have suffered from this for decades here.


>What I see with /pol/ isn't coherent, or logical.

You have to see them as a bunch of very bitter malicious people expressing their angers at life, and their angers doesn't stem from multiculturalism as much as a does from their own failed lives. If it was just that they were racially aware they'd take that as their default worldview and get on with their life. Not create an entire identity around it.

Their entire movement is like a magnet for all the whites with deep antisocial tendencies. I'm a bit of an antisocial person myself but it's something that I'm self-aware of and so I'm able to keep it to myself for the most part.


File: 1490893761380.jpg (475.47 KB, 1100x763, deep-state-swamp-ben-garri….jpg) ImgOps iqdb


File: 1490895044177.png (172.86 KB, 329x290, smugusagi.png) ImgOps iqdb

>Goldman Sachs conveniently left out of the picture

It's cool though, I guess he just had to make space for that pizza-loving satanic Kraken.


File: 1490896311617.png (1.89 MB, 1100x763, 1490893761380.png) ImgOps iqdb






Remember when every leftist in the world used to praise Venezuela and its socialism of the 21st century, which was supposed to actually work and not end up in an authoritarian dictatorship with a failed economy this time? I remember.


File: 1490982704184.webm (10.21 MB, 640x360, socialism of the 21st cen….webm) ImgOps iqdb


Completely forgot yesterday was Brexit day. It's so strange, Brexit used to be such a big deal and everybody had their own opinions and thoughts about it – the news just couldn't get enough of a major ally like the UK leaving the EU. It was like the Trump election before the Trump election, and people asked each other about it and wanted to see the results as soon as possible. Both sides weren't sure if they were going to secure the referendum, but then it actually happened.

There was so much scaremongering about the future of the world by the media, and now there's barely anything. Everybody just kind of moved on and it's like there never was a Brexit.

What did wizards think of Brexit anyways? Happy, sad, indifferent?

I saw it as a sign. Europe's definitely going to be interesting the next couple years.


I don't think people have moved on. Maybe on the big cable general channels they have, but when you look at the business-minded and foreign-policy people, they're giving it the seriousness that it deserves. The UK was a massive part of the EU, and while losing them won't lead directly to a collapse of the union overall, it will weaken it greatly.

The military of the UK has recent (current?) combat experience, and that's something that a lot of the other EU nations are really lacking in. Poland has some, but it's not the most recent, and it's very specialized, and limited. Same with France, and Italy. Yes there is experience, but it's specialized and limited. The UK had a quite serious role in Iraq, in both logistics, and combat. Command and Control was tested, and refined. There's only so much you can realistically learn just wargaming these things.
Economically, I think the EU will be worse off for losing some of the financial power of the UK, and it'll be much more difficult for the EU financiers to make deals with their counterparts in the UK. Obviously, if the UK gets kicked out of the single market, that'll be pretty unfortunate for both sides, and any "victory" will be extremely pyrrhic. The EU might push for it in order to dissuade other EU members from leaving, but it's a bit of a nuclear option for them. I'd expect to see it, if the far-right starts making further gains in Europe. So if Marine Le Pen gets elected, for example, they might start trying to make an example of the UK, just to save the union overall.

I think a lot of the hype around Brexit initially was based around the unknown nature of the whole thing. You had (retarded) people in some quarters saying that this would directly start a European Civil War, which would then become World War 3. Obviously, that hasn't happened, but it certainly was within the realm of something resembling possibility. Now that the OMGDRAMA has worn off, there's only the long slog of figuring out which treaties get to stay, and which treaties have to go. That makes for obscenely bad TV.


I think it's just a waste of everyone's time. The approach is generally to get shit running as it was before brexit, but without the formality of being 'in the EU' so thousands of people have to fuck about reapplying european laws and redoing trade treaties and shit.
All the while not bothering to deal with why people voted to leave the EU in the first place- muslim immigration. People are sick of importing terrorists even if 99% of them aren't part of ISIS, it's the 1% that ruins it. Like would you drink a cup of water that was 1% sewage?

But more seriously, because this is not going to be addressed in the mess, it will fuel future problems.The government is becoming more authoritarian and totalitarian- mostly through the advent of tools like the snooper's charter and basic stuff like trying to remove as much citizen privacy as possible. These are tools for the totalitarian state. At the moment the government doesn't want to use them like this, but since they won't work against terrorism, the fear of muzzies will increase until the voterbase votes in an extremist, who uses the tools to consolidate power and prop up his regime.
Totalitarian tools should never even be made.

Anyway long story short we're creating government tools that are stalin's wet dream in the hope that the people in power will never change, and populism or luck will never put someone abusive in power.



In your opinion, do you think Le Pen has any realistic chance of winning? Is the possibility of a Frexit something that could actually happen as another hard blow to the EU?

Geert lost, a lot of people have told me he still gained more power overall. Maybe Le Pen will lose, but it seems like the EU will try to frantically keep things together after underestimating the reality behind Brexit.

Yeah, it's all pretty much a mess. There will just be more and more Muslim extremist attacks that will fuel political polarization, and at this point the government will just either let the muzzies have their way or crack down on them hitting us in the process.

I don't think Stalin would of liked this situation, I mean right now our nations are pretty split on issues. I think Stalin would of crushed any opposition he didn't like instead of attempting to control it and fail.


File: 1491080604835.jpg (42.89 KB, 634x418, tercer artculo.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Native Europeans have a birth rate below replacement level. That means the population is shrinking and eventually in time native Europeans will become extinct. Is national socialism the only solution to this demographic problem?


Stopping uncontrolled and welfare-supported Middle-Eastern immigration would be a good start rather than going full Nazi just yet.

They can barely get jobs because they generally don't speak the language or really integrate. If they just don't get gibs they will fuck off back to where they belong and maybe give a shit about making their own country great instead of leeching. Birth rate panicking is pointless if the muzzies will always outbreed using free gibs – we gotta treat the wound, not just apply more bandages


National Socialism seems like a strong response, probably cause terrible problems for Wizards. More sane idea would to be to introduce polygamy for normalfags, allow the high status men to have multiple succubi and multiple children.



>Native Europeans have a birth rate below replacement level. That means the population is shrinking and eventually in time native Europeans will become extinct.

That's stupid, Europe has simply reached population equilibrium. There is no demographic problem, other than artificially expanding population by importing people, which is a terrible idea in the long term. If only normies understood that growth is not always good, and the current economic model that relies on continuously increasing population is unsustainable and only benefits a wealthy minority.


I have no clue whether Le Pen will win, honestly. I didn't think Trump would win. I thought he had a chance, but I didn't think he'd make it. I figured he'd pissed off too many people, and made too many enemies. I guess I was wrong. So really, I don't know whether Le Pen will win. If she does, I would expect France to push for more autonomy within the EU, rather than trying to flat-out exit the whole program. France is not an island, and France does not have the world's largest singular military and economic power (USA) to fall back on.
I think if she does manage to pull off a win, she'll need to move quickly with the EU, because the French people will not accept the extreme right for very long. If she winds up brutalizing entire neighborhoods, which is very possible, she won't have the political capital to do much of anything in France, let alone the EU as a whole. At that point, it would be Frexit or nothing, and I imagine the French people would pick nothing, and get rid of her, if she went against their wishes.


>I don't think Stalin would of liked this situation
It's not the situation, it's the tools. Stalin spent a shitton of resources on his secret police. Right now the systems we have allow all phones to be tapped all at once, parsed into text, and stored forever in searchable databases. What's not so spooky is the keyword searching, what's spooky is when people start getting targeted. As when that happens you have someone's entire communication history to pick through with the context of suspicion. Things that are completely innocent in the context they were said take on a different hue when there's the context of a suspicious investigator. The suspicious things found are used to reinforce the belief of wrongdoing and are used as a self-referential context to make even more things look suspicious. Like if you find one reference to 'setting up the bomb', the future things said about 'leaving the package' and 'making a mess' start to pile up and create a story of wrongdoing. The more stuff collected, the more shit can be found, and so anyone can be painted with the brush of treason and 'removed'. The comprehensive nature of a system like this also makes it so other evidence is less collected and the communication history starts getting used as the only thing to investigate people with.

The digital nature of people's existences makes it easier to remove them, too. If Stalin was in power, facebook would be mandatory. Facebook accounts would disappear along with the person, and anyone who claims that a person exists can be falsified by 'they aren't on comradebook'. Throw in the general knowledge that there are loads of jokes trying to 'pretend people exist' and it pumps it up. The centralised nature of online information makes it so comradebook would be the only source of information about people.

Not to mention that with these databases, computer algorithms will be (and have been) written to analyse the data and pinpoint potential problemcausers. Neural networks are more than likely currently being employed on communications, by feeding in communications of known targets to find others like them. As they get used more the technology will get trusted, and if someone gets targeted by a computer bug, they end up in the cycle of suspicion. For a totalitarian state this would mean gulag or concentration camp.

My ultimate view is that a government should protect people from tyranny, not create the very systems to enable tyranny. And such in a total libertarian free market there's no protections against tyranny at all. And in extreme states like communism or nationalism the government is tyrannical to begin with. Or an islamic caliphate, or african dictatorship, or a despot propped up by foreign powers.
So much garbage.


That's true, Stalin would of definitely had much more tools to keep everyone in check. At the same time however, I think he probably would be overloaded with information and would keep making too many people "disappear" for his own good. I mean nobody is perfect, and if people can say things out of context and be crucified for it, then how are any of his subordinates different? If you thought the amount of people disappearing during his rule was bad, then modern technology would just make it a joke in comparison.

Really, if the structure of his government kept changing hands, or if people kept disappearing, then the whole thing would just be inefficient. If he exempted a few people that were considered "safe", then what would prevent them from plotting against him? It would be a paranoid nightmare not just for people living under him, but for himself as well, and that's just a given.

Delete Post [ ]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]