You seem to be a poor confused person.
1 Like
For lefties diversity must be superficialâŠa fshion trend.
They despise real diversity, denying yachting biological because ti is not easily correctable.
For them diversity is menu options, musical genres, fashions, trendiness, accentsâŠThey despise real diversity.
1 Like
Please explain how I am confused.
Indeed, total assimilation of diversity into a singular uniformic assimilative mixture is the antithesis of actually diversity, this seems to be something neoliberals have a problem mentally grasping.
No theyâre not, most Jews believe theyâre fulfilling Godâs prophecy by ridding Palestinians out of Gaza.
1 Like
I have a challenge for you, Mr. Authoritarian.
Letâs see if you can handle it.
It all revolves around your ideally. Iâm pretty sure youâre wise enough to know the ideally resides solely within your head. It has no place in reality, the moment you realize it, it disappears, and then youâre left with either disappointment or the need to erect a new ideally, ie, to build a new sandcastle.
Look at what you write here about the current state of affairs in this world. I was thinking if it would be too much to ask of you to present, in a clear and concise fashion, a vision of what you actually perceive as an ideal world, or country, for people to live. I know you admire the North Korean system. Thatâs an example, for you, of socialism done right. You do not care about the reality of those people (Iâd rather say- their flesh and blood), youâve never been there, youâve never met them. You only care about how the NK system seems to correspond to what you envisage as perfecty realized Marxism.
You talk about a lot of things which are wrong or right, letting it clear you are, above all, a discontent. Your discontentedness, apparently, would only be appeased by the realization of your ideally. Or would it? Thereâs a lot of bad things about the current world and the current state of the country you live in, I see some general discontent about Jews, liberalism, leftism (??), homossexuality, multiculturalism gone wrong. What forces me to think: do you actually, actually know what you want in life, what kind of world youâd like to be living in?
Because, young man, this is the one fundamental question a man must make himself sooner or later in life:
WHAT DO I WANT HERE?
âHereâ meaning in whatever place you might be at the moment. Itâs essential for me to know what I want in life. Whether the ideals in my head are really something Iâd like to realize or merely what they most probably are- coping mechanisms. Now, the talk here is about ideal world, ideal societies, so, the question arises:
Do you have the slightest idea of how complicated a thing a society is?
Iâll not even talk about how complicated the world is, because thatâs too much for a manâs head. A society, a human society, a nation, a country? Is a nation something so simple that we can ideally change it at will? Nope, the ideally will have to take into account a lot of factors, first, millions of people, not a limited group of converging minds, millions of people, where each and every one has a mind and a will of their own. Itâs no surprise it takes a lot of time for nations to form and to develop. Itâs millions and millions of people, of minds, of wills, you have to take into consideration. Itâs not a simple black and white matter of choosing whatâs wrong or whatâs right for all, the morality notions will have to be gradually ingrained in the minds of all, in the âhive mindâ, for them to become effective. Itâs not a simple question of going and saying: âHey guys, you are all acting wrong, hereâs the correct way of doing thingsâ. The âguysâ wonât simply comply and accept the new rules youâre trying to impose on them. Youâll have to force them to accept the new truth, otherwise youâll be ignored and treated like a fool.
So, itâs millions and millions of guys, each with a mind of his own to be taken into account, for men exist individually, thereâs no denying this, and in order to achieve social stability, you need to understand they will need to be pacified, they will need to be convinced their well-being is being secured by the new system youâre proposing. You always talk to people trying to awake the idealists in their heads, but you always have to deal with the flesh and blood men who above all need one simple question answered:
WHO WILL SERVE AND WHO WILL EAT?? (Leonard Cohen)
Moreover, a society is not just this huge collection of beings whose needs must be appeased, and whose egos must feel satisfied, thereâs the whole problem of the Law, which laws are to be approved, which laws are commendable and which ones should be abolished?, thereâs also the whole problem of work relations, should the State entirely regulate work or let people organize it as they seem fit? Thereâs also interpersonal relations, religion, lack of religion, socialy approved entertainment, a thousand different things to be considered.
Taking the topic at hand- race- this is also a huge factor. So, saying races exist and are different from each other is the most basic thing. Itâs almost commonplace. Another, entirely different thing is, how we should deal with the race question when constructing the ideal country? Should we separate all races as a sine qua non condition for their survival? Should we allow miscigenation? The current situation in the world is one of race acceptation and miscigenation, when we think about separating blacks or Asians or Latinos from whites the first things that come to mind are national socialism and eugenics. Thatâs not necessarily reasonable, of course, but how to deal with such a complicated question? Big countries like the United States, France or Germany fully embrace the diversity of races existing in their territory and they wonât change unless they are literally forced, by whatever force or power, to do so.
The same reasoning applies to religion or sexuality. Which religions are to be tolerated in your ideal state? Which religion is to be abhorred? You want freedom of religion? Then you must understand that most, if not all of them defend a worldview contrary to your dearest beliefs. So, youâll have to endure all those people in your country, firmly believing you, the reformer, is a fool who canât grasp the first thing about life. What to say about sexuality? Here you go even further, deeper, than with religion. Here you find man in his most secret, most personal, most intimate aspect. Sexuality is the kingdom of the absolute private, but here you are publicly condemning âdeviationâ in favor of standard, acceptable normality (=a man, a woman, and two or three children). What happens is that, since sexuality is that hidden kingdom unacessible to you, youâll never be able to control it unless you appeal to sheer opression and violence, Hitler style. âThou shalt not touch the body of another maleâ, and woe to him who disobeys. If I read you right, youâre not actually an intolerant blockhead, your intelligence is just clouded by a not negligible level of emotionalism, so itâs really interesting to see how youâd deal with such topics in your ideal society.
The âconstructionâ ex nihilo of a new and reformed society would then be far from easy. Itâs easy, itâs relaxing, to imagine society being reshaped ex abrupto, like magic, being ideally suited to what we want, to where we expect to live. Except, there are so many details to be dealt with, and so many complexities to arrange, that the magical solution (=any ideal) fails to even come close to making up to reality. What happened in Russia, in Cuba, in China, in North Korea, the implementation of their own kinds of socialism, had to obey and to be molded by the sheer circumstances of those countries and those peoples, and even so we can argue the socialism of Russians or of the Chinese has little to do with Marxist socialism. For the world is unforgivable, the world cares nothing about our discontent or our feelings and only demands that we adapt, that we be strong enough to adapt to the almost impossible task that itâs living on it.
I could go on and on, but I think you got the picture.
Letâs see what you say.
1 Like
I should have known.
What was PK saying the other day about âsound and furyâ?
Years ago I lived in the most lawless area of the United States as I was down and out in my traveling hobo days.
In this area lawless violence was an everyday occurrence, it was the closest thing you could get to nihilism, anarchy, and chaos.
People who would stab or shoot each other on a daily basis, women would be raped in their sleep, people would be found executed hanging from nooses on trees with their dead bodies also found in the nearby rivers, and where local violent gangs would make a sport of hunting those that wronged them in the local forests with rifles by giving them a five minute head start to run away before being hunted down themselves killed in murder. I was stuck in that hell hole of a place for two years where I slept every night with a machete and gun under my camp pillow for fear of being murdered myself while asleep from those who would steal what little I had in belongings.
You being an anarchist, do you really know what ideal you embrace? I think not.
I came to that place as an anarchist and I left that place knowing full well the errors of what anarchism really was.
1 Like
Are you really gonna do that, man?
Iâm not the topic here, you are.
1 Like
Who canât live up to their own ideals again?
I must have missed that. Try again. On the other hand, if it was not applicable to a particular issue and context pertaining to race�
Not interested.
Now, is that my ideal? I wrote a lot of essays detailing my views on life. I have not yet detailed how I see life in society, how I interpret things such as solidarity or respect for others.
I see youâre backpedalling. That was a chance for you to come and enlighten others about what are, after all, your ideals, since many a time
to quote Sculptor on the subject, but apparently you either canât or wonât. Worse for you.
âNote to othersâ (to quote Iambiguos now 
): Iâm not trying to direspect Mr Authoritarian here, this is a place for discussion, whatâs fairer than asking someone to clarify their point of view?
Wow you canât just scroll up and read 
i said Halo disproves moral ambiguity. The flood want to spread misery to the galaxy and no good would come of it.
Claiming morality doesnât exist is like, someone gouging out their ears and saying âlook, sound doesnât exist!â Truly groundbreaking philosophy
Youâre an anarchist and Stirnerite who believes in a world of pure ego with no rules or laws. I told you a personal story from one of my life experiences of what kind of world that looks like when you have just one big lawless free for all everywhere. I know what youâre trying to do, but I felt it would be more prudent and fun to show you what your worldview in real life would look like instead. You reacted in a manner just as I thought you would.
Every so called anarchist wants anarchy until the day theyâre forced to live in it themselves.
Anarchy is an excuse to live parasitically off a system an individual does not want to contribute to.
Anarchy can never survive as long as men can organize under αÏÏΔÏ, or shared principles and hierarchies.
Anarchists are children, with daddy issues.
If we recall that intuitions, under State control, are abstractions of masculinity, then archaists are rebelling against this masculine abstraction, to complete their rites of passage into adulthood, because they either do not have a father-figure or none that is present.
1 Like
Thereâs a reason why anarchy never lasts very long, because wherever it briefly exists human life is so disposable eventually anarchy runs out of human bodies to possess for the absolute savagery it entails and death. Just one big meat grinder that eventually exhausts itself until somebody finally comes by and brings order.
You managed to turn this into a discussion on anarchism, when my initial intention was to make you describe what your ideals actually are.
This is some great discussion strategy.
Reminds me of Marxâs over-emotional reaction to Stirner, how he (mis)interpreted Stirner as a proponent of chaos and barbarism, which was never the intention of Stirner in âThe Ego and Its Ownâ.
Letâs see if you can at least answer this question:
Do you have the slightest idea of how complicated a thing a society is?
1 Like
Thatâs entirely open to interpretation.
1 Like
True.
Such things are never absolute. Only black&white thinkers would say what Silneus said.
But then he is a black&white thinker.
Anarchism is a broad spectrum of political thought that challenges illegitimate authority, ranging from constructive critiques of hierarchy to radical rejection of all structures, including nihilism. At its core, it promotes autonomy, mutual aid, and voluntary cooperation.
Some forms, like anarcho-communism and mutualism, advocate decentralized, non-coercive governanceâseen historically in places like anarchist Catalonia or modern-day Rojava. Others embrace direct action and confrontational resistance to oppressive systems. On the far end, anarcho-nihilism questions even morality and meaning itself.
Despite misconceptions, anarchism has produced viable, functioning models of self-organization. In a world increasingly disillusioned with traditional institutions, its principles.
One could even claim that Trump is acting anarchicallly.
Lol okay Scalptor⊠whatever. Youâre just a minion of CNN and MSDNC. Keep watching your talking-heads on the hour.
Completely brainwashed.