/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>71359
I support equality of opportunity socially, economically, and fundamentally on a national scale that utilizes a strict incoming immigration standard.

>>71359
Wecome, by the way.

>>71361
That's an interesting platform I've not heard very often. What led to this view? What would you call yourself, if you had to ascribe a name?

>>71362
Thank you! You're much more polite than I expected, to be honest.

>>71364
> You're much more polite than I expected, to be honest.
Friendship is magic you filthy nigger

>>71370
Who is your favorite pony?

Also, are you in danger of getting arrested in Germany for posting on here?

>>71364
Members only tend to act out when there is perceived insult or injury, otherwise its pretty chill.
As for, I don't know that there is a name. I've observed all manner of double-standard in my professional experience and find differing standards of expectation and competence to be flawed and untenable. As far as nationalism and immigration, that relates to the lax enforcement of existing laws, the existence of sanctuary cities, etc. as means of illegally consuming resources from a variety of agencies which - without addressing the inefficiencies and/or failings of the tax system - maintain essential functions in countering the greater effects of the Gini coefficient over a wider scale (Gini = the greater income inequality over a given area, the higher level of violent crime)

>>71372
Pinky and yes Stasi is watching, just by visiting this site I am becoming a POI.

Funny story.
Just for using search terms as "gentrification" and the likes people got SWATed in the past

>>71373
>Members only tend to act out when there is perceived insult or injury, otherwise its pretty chill.
Heh, wish /pol/ in general were like that. You guys seem alright.
>rest of your post
That's a self-consistent and compelling position. How big do you think government should be?

>>71374
Pinkie is really great. She's not my favorite (that's Starlight) but I thoroughly enjoy her episodes.
>just by visiting this site I am becoming a POI.
Jeez
>>71377
>Just for using search terms as "gentrification" and the likes people got SWATed in the past
That can't be rea–
>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/21/highereducation.internationaleducationnews
That's ridiculous and disgusting. Why does Germany have such strict restrictions on speech?

>>71381
I'd like to know that myself.
Guess the eternal Nazi needs to be shackeld to not fuck up the world again.

But since you come from leftypol, care to explain what is wrong with the world from your poit of view?

>>71359
I will say I am mainly a nationalist, and wish all countries would also be nationalist. I see this as the only way to preserve diversity in the world. The communistic idea that we all work for the state (the global state as the current push is for) and we are all equal destroys this.

You can look at all the "communes" that leftists and punks create. They are isolationist because they don't want to have outsiders there. But they want to fill the outside world with all kinds of riff raff. The "communes" might say everyone is welcome, but the small print says as long as you are exactly as they are or going to become exactly like they are. You are not open for any diverse political view. The only thing you are (to a certain degree) acceptance of is different kinds of music, but again as long as it is not used "by the enemy" or Hitler happened to like it at some point.

The left is also extremely hypocritical when it comes to the open borders. Every country in Europe that want to keep it's identity by having strict immigration and refugee control are evil in the eyes of the leftists. But at the same time leftists are fighting for other people to get their own countries because if those people is forced to live with other people and mix and match with them their culture is threatened.

Your open border policy and one world leadership will lead to every culture being destroyed and all we have left is a grey mass of nothing.

The thing I want is for the world to be filled with diversity. But the only way to preserve diversity is for cultures to stay separate and not try to make every culture mix in one place.

Many leftists uses USA as the example that diversity works. But you should ask yourself why places like Chinatown exists inside a city. This is because the only way to preserve their identity is to separate themselves from other cultures. You can also think about what the Indians in America think about the diversity in "their country". The only way USA works is because the original countrymen were killed and replaced completely. This is the only way diversity can work. Kill anyone that might have a cultural tie to the land you are diversify and no one will complain.

So there is a short view of what I think. There are probably many nuances and in-depth explanation missing, and I have not reviewed the text or thought too much about what I wrote so some things might be presented in less than a crystal clear way.

And I might add that Passports works and people like those who were against Brexit needs to learn how to use them. Passports is an excellent way to travel between different countries and cultures to experience them. It is like children today on the left don't know that Passports exists and have existed and worked for eons.

I'm a libertarian in the Hoppean tradition. I view property rights as being fundamental to civilization as a whole, and understand that an expropriating property protector is a contradiction. I believe the best way to maintain private property is through private societies based on freedom of association.

>>71359
What made you decide to visit this place?

>>71381
>govt size
Thats a difficult question, and involves detailing a greater population that behaves in a manner quite different than is evident. For both (society and govt) to be where I find is best for an emergent and developmental population - of whatever minimal or maximum capacity - would take more than my lifetime by my estimation.
To answer however, I think the government could be entirely irrelevant and that all manner of emergency response could be merged with the military.

>>71359
can you state your political ideology and define it in your own words?

>>71373
>As for, I don't know that there is a name.
I asked a political science professor friend of mine. He described it as "national democratic socialism". Not sure if that's what I'd call it, but it could work.

>>71382
I think it boils down to economic inequality, and the scarcity that results. I think the fix for the problems in the world is to remove scarcity, and that technology provides the solution to scarcity. Whether it's through uploading our minds to computers, or genetic enginor just the creation of replicators, we need to find a way to make people equal - not equal-poor, like under Mao, but equal-rich, where wealth stops having a meaning beacuse everyone has a higher quality of life than the billionaires today.

I think this will be possible within 50 years.

>>71383
Most of what you said applies to SJW ideology and neoliberalism, not communism.

What do you think of national bolshevism/Strasserism? And have you ever looked at "communism in one country" (Leninist)? It is fine with strong borders.

>The thing I want is for the world to be filled with diversity. But the only way to preserve diversity is for cultures to stay separate and not try to make every culture mix in one place.
Should tourism be possible? Permanent immigration with assimilation?

Personally I don't really care if borders are open or closed. It just isn't really an issue to me.

>>71385
How much of Hoppe do you believe? Do you agree with him on the cultural conservatism?

>>71386
I was on /mlp/ during the April Fools merge, showed up here shortly after this place was created, got bored, and left. Wanted to see if you guys were still around and kicking.

>>71387
Interesting. I personally am in favor of government as small as possible, and ideally nonexistant.

>>71388
I like to post Stirner memes, and I get a laugh out of posting Posadist stuff, but in seriousness I'd call myself a transhumanist. I believe that the way to make the world the best place it can be is to use technology to abolish scarcity and solve our other problems.

>>71392
Not dead, just spent a while typing up.

>>71385
>freedom of association.
Have you ever read Stirner? He disagreed on property rights (or rights in genertal) existing, but his idea of a "union of egos" seems very in line with freedom of association.

>>71394
>or genetic enginor
*or genetic engineering, or

>>71394
Transhumanist meaning of cybernetics and digitizing consciousness and all that? I'm actually going into robotics myself and I think it'd be more efficient to just make androids and try to work to give them full sentience rather than upgrade ourselves. Humans are inherently flawed and there's no real way to correct that I'd rather build something better and teach it to be self-reliant and productive.

also if you like stirner I'd recommend Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals by John Gray

As far as government I'd rather have a confederation no federal government at all just a loose connection of nation states that work together for things like a supreme court and a military but I'd like all government to be brought down to a local level; i.e. Coastal california can have their communism or whatever as long as we can have a white ethnostate somewhere, also if communism fails again we shouldn't have to pay for that they're on their own. The essential purpose of government, in my opinion, is the mitigation of external threats a government exists to have a military and borders to protect citizens from outside threats and to uphold law and order so people are free to live their lives without incident anything else should be done privately by people without any government action. Personally I'm opposed to all multi- cultural/ethnic ideas, there's a concept that Aristotle talks about called philia that any sort of proper republic or democracy needs to function and that is impossible with out racial unity. I want a high trust, Low crime society, with no taxes or at most a flat income tax of no more than 10% and no other taxes.

>>71394
>Most of what you said applies to SJW ideology and neoliberalism, not communism.
Communism is in its core a totalitarian system where everyone is suppose to mix. Look at Soviet. Stalin relocated people from and moved people into the Warsaw pact countries to diversify them so they lost their identity and became part of Soviet.
But I guess you the mantra "B-but that wasn't real communism so….". Yes it was. Communism is a one world order where everyone is equal and the only thing that matters is the state. Why do you think Soviet tried to sell communism to other countries as the best thing since turnip soup and include them into the fold of communism? They wanted a global one world government ruled by Moscow.

>Should tourism be possible? Permanent immigration with assimilation?
It is like you didn't read the last line of my post.
>And I might add that Passports works and people like those who were against Brexit needs to learn how to use them. Passports is an excellent way to travel between different countries and cultures to experience them. It is like children today on the left don't know that Passports exists and have existed and worked for eons.
And yes if it is assimilation they are looking for and not to bring their culture to the country the move to I don't see a big problem. Of course it could become a problem so restrictive practices are called for. Sort of like with the environment if I am going to assume you are that kind of leftist. Better safe than sorry.

>Personally I don't really care if borders are open or closed. It just isn't really an issue to me.
This is what is so wrong with leftists. You can't see the big picture or think ahead.

>>71394
I believe that cultural conservatism in the form of culturally cohesive communities would be the logical result of restoring total freedom of property owners to discriminate with their property, and that a degree of cultural cohesion is necessary for libertarianism to take hold.
>>71395
I tried reading once a year or two back, but lost interest. I'll probably read him sometime soon, though.

>>71395
Yes I have read Stirner. The Union of Egoists is where humans engage freely in reciprocal relationships with other egos. Essentially it's the Lockean State of Nature, or Ayn Rand's minds interacting with minds. What the Union of Egoist absolutely is not is a commune or other collective. A commune works as a corporate whole, where individuals put the needs of the collective before their own at least some of the time. And that is absolutely against the Stirnerist philosophy. He would not allow anything to be above the self, whether it be a commune or "Man" as an ideal. And Stirner is pretty clearly opposed to the early Communists. When you read Feuerbach's "The Essence of Christianity," you can tell pretty clearly that it is the predecessor to Karl Marx's works. You can also tell that Feuerbach's work is what Stirner is referring to in the early chapters of "The Ego and His Own" when he is speaking of "Man" as the ideal of society towards which we form obligations and collectives.

>>71394
>Limited government
Well, in a sense I agree. I feel that the people should be the acting governing body, and that administrative tasks can be magnificently streamlined by repurposing existing/emergent technologies. Simply, governing can be done by chat room in essence. Having said, the people have a greater responsibility to themselves and one another that is not being met imo. I find that an observable majority are not acting in a matter that behooves themselves OR the group they participate in. Having said, I haven't found a more effective method of inspiring a greater participation (on an individual level) than positive and negative encouragement (reinforcement).
I'm enjoying this exchange. I can see you're in a multi-tree of dialogue, so don't feel obligated to immediately respond.

>>71400
>Transhumanist meaning of cybernetics and digitizing consciousness and all that?
Yeah.
>I think it'd be more efficient to just make androids and try to work to give them full sentience rather than upgrade ourselves. Humans are inherently flawed and there's no real way to correct that I'd rather build something better and teach it to be self-reliant and productive.
I personally want to be a computer program, but I can understand the long-term appeal of just making robots smarter.
>also if you like stirner I'd recommend Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals by John Gray
Never read it, I might give it a read.

>>71401
>Communism is in its core a totalitarian system where everyone is suppose to mix. Look at Soviet. Stalin relocated people from and moved people into the Warsaw pact countries to diversify them so they lost their identity and became part of Soviet.
Depends on the kind of communism, honestly. There are literally hundreds of variations. What you're describing is Stalinism, which certainly is one kind communism but is by no means the only.

Communism at its core is an economic system, not a political one.

>It is like you didn't read the last line of my post.
I didn't, sorry.

>And yes if it is assimilation they are looking for and not to bring their culture to the country the move to I don't see a big problem. Of course it could become a problem so restrictive practices are called for. Sort of like with the environment if I am going to assume you are that kind of leftist. Better safe than sorry.
As for the environment - I don't really mind that much about it. Either huamnity annihilates ourselves, in which case we're the victims of natural selection, or we don't, and no longer need our enviroment.

>This is what is so wrong with leftists. You can't see the big picture or think ahead.
I can. I just fundamentally don't value the nation very much.

>>71403
>first part
Alright, that's reasonable. Don't agree, but you're making more sense than the "muh helicopters" idiots.
>second part
Here you go.

>>71404
>What the Union of Egoist absolutely is not is a commune or other collective. A commune works as a corporate whole, where individuals put the needs of the collective before their own at least some of the time. And that is absolutely against the Stirnerist philosophy.
Oh, agreed absolutely. The Stirnerist idea places you personally as the most important thing in the universe, whereas the many flavors of collectivism value the many over the few, let alone the one.

>>71406
>I feel that the people should be the acting governing body, and that administrative tasks can be magnificently streamlined by repurposing existing/emergent technologies. Simply, governing can be done by chat room in essence.
This is the idea of a neural democracy, basically. Technology should greatly reduce the clogging of bureaucracy.
>I'm enjoying this exchange.
Me too. It's very fun to discuss the minutae of political thinking.

>>71394
>I think it boils down to economic inequality, and the scarcity that results. I think the fix for the problems in the world is to remove scarcity, and that technology provides the solution to scarcity. Whether it's through uploading our minds to computers, or genetic enginor just the creation of replicators, we need to find a way to make people equal - not equal-poor, like under Mao, but equal-rich, where wealth stops having a meaning beacuse everyone has a higher quality of life than the billionaires today.

Inequality is a problem.
But removing scaraity does not seems possible in a world with limited ressouces.
Technology can play part in the solution but I highly doubt it IS the solution.
there are so many problems with this that I can't even beginn to describe it.
It is disgusting and even it if would work the whole thing is ridiculous.
Forcing everyone to be equeal to avoid inequality is no way to go.
Sexes, races and people are different and it even has to be that way biologically.

There are distribution problems and philosophycal problems that go along with that.
But making everything equal looks to me like no way to go.

>>71407
While you are here, please enjoy some unironically well-intentioned horse-pussy.
So we agree that a decrease of literal government would be apt, and I think we agree that the masses could/should take a greater participation in those governing decisions/functions. The next area of consideration is economical, with respect to employment and GDP. How do you see a nation acting responsibly to its people and its infrastructure, given the previous?

>>71407
> I personally want to be a computer program
I only have a casual understanding of the research into this and I have some bad news for you, it's an evolving field and their might be new research I'm not aware of but, as far as I'm aware in say sometime from now and 50 years in the future it may indeed become possible to get scans of your brainwaves, download your memories, etc. etc. and it'd be theoretically possible to create a digital consciousness with true artificial intelligence that perceived itself to be you, but you have to understand I doubt it'll ever really be possible to "move" your consciousness itself into a computer. The program created would assuredly experience it like that but your original consciousness would still be in your meat body after the copy was constructed.

tl;dr - in the near future we could theoretically create a digital consciousness that was "you", but you'd still also be you and the original you wouldn't experience being the program

also here's the book

>>71408
>But removing scaraity does not seems possible in a world with limited ressouces.
Agreed, but technology comes into play there too. Our asteroid belt is chock full of minerals, and complex molecules like food can be synthesized. And that's if we even need food at that point.

>Sexes, races and people are different and it even has to be that way biologically.
Does it have to be that way if we're genetically engineered to be the absolute best we physically can? Or upgraded with robotics or nanobots? Let alone once we have uploading-minds-into-computers technology?

>Forcing everyone to be equeal to avoid inequality is no way to go.
You wouldn't be forced. The option to upgrade would be there, but if you wanted to remain unaugmented you'd be welcome to. I just think most people (certainly not all, but most) would rather upgrade, and that making the option availible effectively ends scarcity.

>>71409
This is going to sound crazy, but I actually prefer suggestive images like pic related to outright porn.

I think the ideal solution is giving away implants/brainscans/fabricator machines to anyone who wants them. But until then, I think socialism is a responsible way to handle it. Let the workers own their factory and the things they produce on it. This can be done without deposession of property - look to the baristas of South America for good examples of collectives formed by workers deciding to split the profits and costs, instead of having a boss.

>>71410
>tl;dr - in the near future we could theoretically create a digital consciousness that was "you", but you'd still also be you and the original you wouldn't experience being the program
Aw man. Ah well, at least my consciousness will survive.

Speaking of consciousness, what do you think of the quantum immortality idea? The one that says you can never die, because you'll only experience universes where your consciousness survives?

>>71410
Forgot to say, thanks for the PDF!

>>71359
I'm in for racial feudalistic communism. I seek that the black proletariot masses to rise above us Swedish folk, so we may be subjugated for our unbearable past sins. The white men will toil away working to make chastity belts (for white men) and bbc porn while the women are inseminated by superior black seed. Then, when finally the last white man dies out in Sweden, true communism will unfold. We've been oppressing them so much that it's the only good I can do. I managed to get a girlfriend finally, although it's an open relationship, so I could implement this ideology on a small scale. It makes suffer, so it's good. I'm hoping to get some of my friends to do it, and the prospects look promising.

>>71411
Okay problem number one is the term augmented.
It is a change first and foremost.

If you are not forced to "upgrade" it creates the inequality that people want to fight.

Humans are reatarded, what humans think is a step forward is just a step further into dependency and manipulation.

This is highly based in nihilistic thinking but nihilism is stupid and negates it self.

This transhumanism shit honestly disgusts me and it will solve not one problem more than it produces.

There has to be a way without reducing yourself to a cogwheel in the construct of engeneered civilization.

>>71412
> what do you think of the quantum immortality idea?
I think religion has been displaced by "science" and people are still grasping for meaning in life, the whole "what if this is all just a computer simulation and when you die you go to the real world" idea was just a secular version of the afterlife and quantum immortality is just the secular version of reincarnation. To be blunt, and I could be wrong of course, going by what we reasonable know and can prove humans are just animals and consciousness is purely a chemical reaction. You are no more immortal than a beaver or a termite.

>>71416
>racial feudalistic communism
wat
>rest of your post
Oh, you're just shitposting. Never mind.

>>71417
It sounds like we can't reconcile this, then. I don't really have much else to say besides… I hope it's not as bad as you fear.

Be safe with respect to your country's censorship.

>>71413
you're welcome, friend

>>71412
Lol, you just triggered a guy in England.
I'll be honest, I have serious misgivings about transhumanism, especially in observance of who are the dominant parties in technology today. I don't contest that transhumanism could be utilized to trend towar and/or achieve 'what I would have', but that seems like an avenue I would not trust to - for example - burger society.

>>71419
> I hope it's not as bad as you fear.
It is always worse…

But thank you for sharing your point of view.

>>71407
>Communism at its core is an economic system, not a political one.
The economical arguments are just a ruse to get voters. No communist country has been without a ruling class. It is like saying The Green Party is not a political but environmental movement. Both parties are dreamers and lack any real contact with the ground or rationality. The green party might want to "save the environment" but their solution is to ban cars, stop all oil production, and then replace it all with something that don't produce any pollution. And if they are elected it will magically be invented by someone somewhere and solve all our problems.

>I just fundamentally don't value the nation very much.
Don't you see what is good with separate nations? That homogeneous groups thrives…

>>71418
>I think religion has been displaced by "science" and people are still grasping for meaning in life,
Definitely, that's related to the UFO cults.
>the whole "what if this is all just a computer simulation and when you die you go to the real world" idea was just a secular version of the afterlife
Yeah
>quantum immortality is just the secular version of reincarnation
I'm not sure actually. Could be the case, or could be the secular version of Hell - having to live in a world where you can never die and have to watch everyone you care about go before you.
>To be blunt, and I could be wrong of course, going by what we reasonable know and can prove humans are just animals and consciousness is purely a chemical reaction. You are no more immortal than a beaver or a termite.
Probably - but can you experience nonexistence? Wouldn't you be forced to experience existence?
This is assuming the quantum many worlds idea holds, of course. If it doesn't then quantum immortality doesn't exist.

>>71420
Here, have some stuff in return. Sharing is caring.

173GB of books, best in every field from some 4/lit/ anon.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:488eb9134190440bbf1e77929754321c85a24c72&dn=The%20All-Embracing%20Library&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3a6969%2fannounce&tr=http%3a%2f%2ftracker.opentrackr.org%3a1337%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80&tr=udp%3a%2f%2fopen.demonii.com%3a1337

2tb of 1517 games (game list here: https://pastebin.com/6U1S0fx8)
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:c872b434ad3ddc073c5468733b20340a509f4b43&dn=GOG%20Collection

>>71421
>Lol, you just triggered a guy in England.
What? There isn't a signle British flag in this thread.
>I'll be honest, I have serious misgivings about transhumanism, especially in observance of who are the dominant parties in technology today.
That's very true. I definitely hope the technologies are open source and not in Apple or Google's private databases..

>>71422
Turn that frown upside down. We may not agree on what the best solution is, but the world has a lot more than just politics.

>>71425
>What? There isn't a signle British flag in this thread.
Dont worry, He still knows. Being a Glimmernigger is his trigger.

>>71425
I think we agree on many ideals but I don't think that this approach will yield any positive results.
It may seems nice in theory but confronted with reality it will fall to pieces.
Atleast that is what I can say based on the information I have gathered during the course of my life.
Also nihilism is shit.

>>71424
>The economical arguments are just a ruse to get voters.
Not sure if Lenin or Trotsky were rusing, but Stalin definitely was. The American Communist Party is like 500 people, 1/3 of which are FBI agents. I'm not sure about other countries' communist parties, but the Kurds seem to be doing pretty well.

>No communist country has been without a ruling class.
That's true. However, smaller communist areas have been without a ruling class - the Paris Commune is a great example.

>It is like saying The Green Party is not a political but environmental movement. Both parties are dreamers and lack any real contact with the ground or rationality.
Most Greens are dreamers, and it's true that many commies are. But the ideology is based in dialectical analysis of labor relations, and what is in the workers' best interest.

>The green party might want to "save the environment" but their solution is to ban cars, stop all oil production, and then replace it all with something that don't produce any pollution. And if they are elected it will magically be invented by someone somewhere and solve all our problems.
Yup.

>Don't you see what is good with separate nations? That homogeneous groups thrives…
I see the advantages, but you also have to see the disadvantages. Isolating cultures prevents technology and science from spreading easily, for example.

>>71428
Your very own Barneyfag?

>>71429
Nihilism is just Stirnerism-lite. It's not even good for meme purposes.

>>71430
>your very own Barneyfag?
yes, we truly are the best of both boards.

>>71425
> can you experience nonexistence?
what would experience nonexistence? what is "you"? humans attribute a lot of importance to our species and consciousness, but we're no more alive or special than any other animal in the grand scheme of things. The sense of "self" you have is just a chemical reaction in a cluster of nerve tissue, humans are animals anon. This is probably hard to understand in the western world even if it's post-religious. Most western philosophy views humans as special beings "chosen by god" or "made in the image of god" and so on. Read up on Buddhism and Taoism and it might be easier to comprehend what I'm getting at, but I don't view humans as anything special despie how many humans view themselves.

thank you, and in return here's the /pol/ book folder:

mega:#F!B4dB2SzQ!h_pMC30v2a_y31iD0dy0sg

>>71432
I agree with you on the un-specialness of humanity completely. What I'm dubious about is the nonexistence of my own conscousness.

I'm fully aware of how I'm just a bundle of nerves, but all the same, I can perceive, and I don't know if I'd be able to perceive nonperception.

Thanks for the book folder anon. Here's another resource that may interest you, since you're scientifically inclined.

http://sci-hub.io/

It's basically piratebay for scientific articles.

>>71437
can you prove a consciousness exists? can you even prove you have free will? where's the evidence of perception?

>>71437
also noice website, thank you

>>71438
I actually don't think I have free will. I think my decisions are controlled by my atoms moving in specific patterns.

As for consciousness: I'm not sure.

>>71440
No problem. Knowledge should be free.

>>71430
>However, smaller communist areas have been without a ruling class - the Paris Commune is a great example.
I have to say I have not read too much about the Paris Commune etc. but most utopian political ideologies will work in small experiments. Just like the small town/village in Germany that disconnected from the power grid, and produced it's own energy from wind and solar. Banned petrol cars and charged them via the power they produced. Sure they could say they were environmental but their little experiment would never be possible to scale up.
This is what is dangerous with small experiments you can write anecdotes but you can't always easily scale it up and make it work.
>granted I can't speak about the Paris Commune per say as I don't know enough about it
But this is also why I am against open borders and removing states. You take away the ease of doing stuff that might work. Just look at the bureaucratic mess the EU is. To get anything passed every single one of the nations have to agree. Sure they can temporarily remove the voting rights of one nation to force the bill to pass, but it is not a good way to do it. All it ends up with it non-elected officials that is not accountable for what they do trying to find the lowest common denominator to force down upon the people in the European Union. This is how an world government works.

>I see the advantages, but you also have to see the disadvantages. Isolating cultures prevents technology and science from spreading easily, for example.
Cooperation on technology and science is not hindered by borders. There has been lots of cooperation throughout time between nations. It is not a new phenomena that came with the EU or anything. Universities have been talking to each other for a long long time.

>>71437
>>71440
While we are on sites for science
http://forums.mvgroup.org/index.php?showtopic=2827
Lots and lots of documentaries

>>71446
Would it be possible to do a ton of small experiments and thus "string together" a large one from the ground up, instead of imposed from the top down?

Also, thanks for the site!

On another, mostly unrelated note, what do you all think of conspiracy theories?

I'm immensely interested in the UFO phenomenon.

>>71441
rather than your atoms I'd say it's your genetics and memetics, who you are and what you know, I'd recommend The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins he talks a bit about proper scientific memes in this. I have a copy of the audiobook torrented let me see if I can upload it for you

>>71450
I'll just find the text. Audiobooks aren't my thing.

Thanks for the offer though.

>>71449
>UFO conspiracies
Okay wait a sec, you said ur leftypol? I wanna say you have to come back, but I'm almost thinking of posting a thread. I like this.

>>71451
okay

>>71449
>>71452
I thought "UFO" were just experimental aircraft made by the NRO?

>>71452
I'm leftypol, yeah.

Posting a thread where? Leftypol?

>>71455
Some probably are. But not all.

>>71456
>posting on leftypol
I'll probably get banned just for suggesting it, but that is the idea I was considering.

>>71457
Could give it a try. Worse thing, the autistic leftypol mods delete your thread.

>>71457
I don't think we want to risk drawing a lot of /leftypol/alks here, OP is pretty chill but I'm not sure we'd get along very well with most of them

>>71459
At least a bit of leftypol already knows about this place and thinks it's a joke. I doubt you'd get an influx of users, but it's possible.

If one does happen, you guys will probably either love or hate the tankies, you'll probably laugh at the ancoms, and you'll probably be annoyed by the stirnerposters.

>>71448
>Would it be possible to do a ton of small experiments and thus "string together" a large one from the ground up, instead of imposed from the top down?
Sure, but this is how I see we had it not too many years ago. We were many countries diverse and thriving. And we had an UN that didn't want to play governing body over other countries, but a fora to where "enemies" could talk and say their thing. And occasionally on rare instances make extremely rudimentary rules like "Please lets agree not to burn civilians alive during a war". But the UN have started to meddle in all sort of stuff they should stay out of, and they are trying to impose detailed rules on so many areas today. I wish the UN went back to be a forum for discussion and not something that wants to make more and more global rules.
So basically I want lots of countries (about the amount we have today, but I'll leave that up to the individuals in the other nations to decide for themselves how they want to be). And bordercontrol between these countries and allow people to talk to eachother across borders and inside borders.

>>71461
I am definitely against the UN. For different reasons than you probably, but I think they are bad and need a lot less power.

>>71462
The UN has outlived its usefulness and is now the very threat it was designed to destroy, It needs to go.

>>71460
friendship is not a joke!

we've a lot of different users here too, ancaps, libertarians, natsoc, etc. but generally right-wing. A lot of the stirner memes seem forced, like the spook thing.

>>71462
They had their use back in the day, but they have got a taste of power and don't want to let go. Sadly many countries governments buy into this power and signs every single document the UN produces.

>>71462
>>71465
the EU as well bureaucracies are a waste of money

>>71466
>ancaps
Laughed at by leftypol.
>libertarians
Laughed at by leftypol, but not as much as ancaps. Leftypol thinks they're all cryptofascists.
>natsoc
Leftypol just thinks they're stupid. Expect tons of spookposting around this.

Honestly I think you're right, if leftypol came here in numbers it would probably either devastate the board or lead to mods banning all lefties. Both would suck.

>stirner memes
"Spooks" isn't forced, but it is used by people who have never read Stirner and have no idea what he's about.

To be fair, I get a chuckle out of spookposting on 4chan every now and then. It makes /r/the_donald insanely angry.

>>71472
>libertarians
>cryptofascists
You're gonna have to explain that to me, m8. What's your definition of "fascism"?

>>71474
I don't believe it myself - in fact, I have a lot of right-libertarian friends and think they are pretty great people.

However, the majority of leftypol believes that all libertarians are fascists in waiting. That when push comes to shove, they will accept dictators like Pinochet to protect their property.

>>71472
I could say the say about how leftist political ideology is viewed by /pol/ I don't think there's enough common ground or shared beliefs for both /pol/ and /leftypol/ users to co-exist in large numbers on a single political board. Also for the record pic related is a simple definition of "fascism"

>>71477
Yeah, I know that bit of stuff. There have been attempts to have neutral grounds for discussion between /pol/ and /leftypol/, but they ultimately don't work becuse they end up turning into "CUCK JEW NIGGER" and "SPOOK PORKY KULAK".

>that image
Thanks! It'll be good to have this on hand. Also see >>71476 for my thoughts on libertarianism.

>>71476

I mean political libertarian are generally libertarian right, fascism is authoritarian right. It'd be like if we called the libertarian left who are classical liberals "cryptocommunists" it makes no sense as communism is authoritarian left so it's as separate from their beliefs as anything right wing is

>>71478
the left needs a better tolerance for free speech which necessarily includes offensive speech, the right needs to not take itself so seriously and not be so quick to enrage. Neither of these things are very likely to happen.

>>71476
>fascists in waiting. That when push comes to shove, they will accept dictators
That's not the same as a fascist though; It's just opportunistic.
A fascist would want a strong, unified state all the time.

>>71479
>I mean political libertarian are generally libertarian right, fascism is authoritarian right. It'd be like if we called the libertarian left who are classical liberals "cryptocommunists" it makes no sense as communism is authoritarian left so it's as separate from their beliefs as anything right wing is
Yup. It's quite stupid. /leftypol/ has a lot of smart people, but they are really dumb about a few things.

Though are classical liberals in the libertarian left? I always thought of them as libertarian center.

Pic semi related.

>>71480
Leftypol is alright with offensive speech, you'll see "nigger" and "faggot" tossed around frequently there. In fact, this has led to the rest of the radical left completely denouncing them.

Saying you're from leftypol will get you banned from every single communist, socialist, or anarchist subreddit out there. So will saying something like "class struggle is more important than internalized misogyny". Reddit's communist subs are nothing but SJWs acting edgy.

Leftypol's biggest problem is paranoia. 8/pol/ raids them all the time, so they've gotten extremely paranoid about trolling. Starting a right-wing thread will probably lead to it getting deleted or even banned. Posting right-wing thoughts in a thread might or might not.

>>71481
Indeed.

>>71479
Hardly, libertarian and fascist are almost diametrically opposed.
>>71479
>fascism is authoritarian right
It largely depends on what the corporatist regulatory system will decide. It's fully up to different vocational representational bodies, and it can range from each industry. There's a spectrum it can go from left to right in regulation, but it mostly lies on center (either due the difficulty to identify or that the economy is actually centrist.)

>>71482
closer to the center anyway, but still center left I think, maybe egalitarians would've made more sense. The hippies don't have a political movement per say so it's hard to use them as an example

>>71485
when I say "fascist" I'm picturing Duce's blackshirts so yeah, authoritarian right.

>>71485
>Hardly, libertarian and fascist are almost diametrically opposed.

didn't I say this? I'm pretty sure that's what I said. One is libertarian and the other is authoritarian fascism is the same distance from libertarianism on the political graph as it is from communism

>>71487
That makes sense.



Going to go to bed now, this was quite a good discussion.

You guys are pretty great. Hope you get something out of the torrents in >>71425 and the various other links ITT.

Regardless of political affiliation or ideology, friendship is magic.

>>71492
Its been fun! Come back sometime!

>>71493
Glad you enjoyed too! I had a great time.

Who knows, I might come back tomorrow. Might even become a regular. But as I'm probably the only leftist here I imagine I'll stick out, haha

>>71492
g'night, sweet dreams

>>71494
Your candor and demeanor has been exemplary, and this exchange has indicated that interaction might not be so bad, to your credit.

Oh! Forgot, had to ask this.

>>71493
>>71495
>pony
>anthro
>EQG
>humanized
How would you rank them?

>>71497
Yes, Some, No, mostly no except milky.
>Desu

>>71497
pony is obviously the best!

>>71497
I'm not into anthro myself it's kinda too furry for me, what's EQG? and if humanized is like the "equestria girls" stuff then I refuse it.

>>71501
>whats EQG
>if its Equestria Girls,….
Xp

>>71501
EQG is short for equestria girls.

Humanized is stuff like pic related. Human skin tone, arguably no wings or horn (this is debated), definitely human face.

>>71503
>no hooves
doesn't do it for me

Here's one more present for you guys. This site hosts reuploads of art packs (usually porn) behind paywalls like Patreon. This guy uploads pony, anthro, humanized, and EQG. Site's in Spanish, but it shouldn't be too hard to navigate.

http://www.spike-el-clopero.org/

>>71511
excellent! Thanks anon.

>>71359
Damn sad I missed most of the fun hope you come back soon since I used to be a commie myself tankie and would love to talk ideology in general. Also…

>>71372
>Who is your favorite pony?
Ponks
>>71497
pony>humanized>anthro>EQG

>>71359
I just need to ask, why the fuck do people on /leftypol/ buy into the obscure ideologies that seem to be more like passing fads than political views. It seems like it's almost a competition to find the most obscure fucking ideology on Earth. For example, this egoism trend going on.

>>71526
OP went to slep, he might be back another time

>>71377
That's insane

>Review
OP behaved himself; I'd not have expected/guessed.
>pleasantly surprised
No complaints
>still wary
>pic surprisingly not related

>>71359
National Socialist here. My grandfather, a devotee even after the Communists pumped a shitton of propaganda into Germany, always believed in the health of the German nation and people above all else, and he brought me up that way. At the end of the day, despite all the horrible crimes and antisemitism, that's what National Socialism was all about, the health of the people. Their economic policy is centrist so you don't sacrifice all the economic freedom you would be forced to in Marxism, yet also contains social policies intent on bettering the lives of everyone, like free healthcare and a union that will find you work if you have none, rather than needing to strike it out on your own. To me, the economic policies of the Reich are one of the few economic systems that actually maintained equilibrium for it's civilian population (before the war, during the war is a different beast) while not sacrificing an unreasonable amount of economic liberties or social programs.

While I do see some flaws with National Socialism like the scapegoating of jews, I can see exactly why it was done, and how circumstances lead to the extreme hate in Germany at the time. Things like the German Communist Revolution being +60% jewish, 5/7 German media corporations being owned by jews, and the hate that came out of the 1st world war, directed to those feeding the war economy, and when the economy collapsed in on itself in WW1 a lot of jews (who didn't go fight out of principle, though some jews did fight so the one's who didn't were left with the factories) were to blame for the perceived defeat. I can go into detail about almost every single point of antisemitism in Nazi Germany, minus the holocaust cause I'm literally not allowed to, and explain what lead to the Nazi's hating the jews, and why those incidents happened. Now, I don't paint myself as a supporter of antisemitism because I believe it wasn't really the small individuals fault, and as with any group there are evil and good members of that group. The issue I take with it is the extraordinary amount of foreigners controlling what should rightfully be controlled by the citizens, not those seeking to exploit them. It just so happens, that a lot of these foreigners are Jewish, and I don't want them in my government, media, or controlling my banks, just as I don't want Muslims or Chinese in those positions.

>but being a jew isn't a ethnicity, it's a religion!
Yes it is, weither they're Arshkenazi or Sephardi only jews are allowed citizenship in Israel, making it an ethnicity. There's far too many people with duel citizenship - with a worrying amount being Israeli - in positions of power in countries that they're not loyal to. Especially in the banks - they care even less about the people's wellbeing than modern politicians.

>>71539
Never stop fighting to good fight Germanbro.

>>71539
I think Weininger (a Jewish writer) sums it up;
"The true concept of the State is foreign to the Jew, because he, like the woman, is wanting in personality; his failure to grasp the idea of true society is due to his lack of free intelligible ego. Like women, Jews tend to adhere together, but they do not associate as free independent individuals mutually respecting each other's individuality.-
-1As there is no real dignity in women, so what is meant by the word "gentleman" does not exist amongst the Jews. The genuine Jew fails in this innate good breeding by which alone individuals honour their own individuality and respect that of others. There is no Jewish nobility, and this is the more surprising as Jewish pedigrees can be traced back for thousands of years."

>>71548
>shame
I'll fix it, I promise

>>71544
should this say "…in the end"? /ourguy/s lost WW2 after all

>>71551
No. BECAUSE THE REICH LIVES ON!

>>71554
Facism is eternal.

>>71555
Heil!

>>71551
True, but some made it out to live on

>>71555
check'd

Morning everyone! Guess I will be sticking around after all.

>>71524
>tankie
ohboyherewego.jpg

Sorry, it's just that I'm dubious about tankies after how much they degrade leftpo

I'm not a commie proper, I'm a transhumanist. I think socialism is a good approach in the meantime, but that we should aim to advance as fast as possible so we can leave unaided flesh behind.

>>71526
A lot of /leftypol/ has a background in /lit/, where reading the most obscure philosophers and political theorists gives you the most acclaim.

Egoism/Stirnerism isn't THAT obscure, it's still taught in upperclass political science. A really obscure one is posadism, which I see talked about a fair amount. Their OC is really cute though.

Also, there are a lot of Pinkie fans on here.

>>71534
I'm happy you enjoyed too. But what are you wary of?

>>71539
Huh, that's quite well-put. I don't agree with your final position, but I can agree with quite a few of your premises. And it's very refreshing to see a non-antisemitic natsoc.

By saying you're a natsoc, are you putting yourself in danger of being arrested? I'm worried about you germanbros on here.

>>71616
good morning, it's the robotics anon from before I thought of another question. Isn't /leftypol/ sort of illegitimate, like as in the board itself? Maybe not so much anymore that the democrats, media, and SPLC are turning on antifa, but if you're lefty politically incorrect what beliefs does /leftypol/ have that aren't PC? most of what you guys believe seems to be supported in general especially in the media and our education system. Also given that a lot of you are socialist/communists isn't it a problem that Bill Gates, Google, and Mitt Romney side with you guys on a lot of issues? it doesn't get more Bourgeoisie than that.

>>71619
I'm honestly confused by your statement. /leftypol/ thinks antifa is stupid, and I can't even imagine how Mitt Romney is socialist.

>what beliefs does /leftypol/ have that aren't PC?
Racial issues don't matter. Trans/gay issues don't matter. Feminist issues don't matter. /leftypol/ believes all of those things are irrelevant distractions from the issues of class relations and scarcity, and that has earned /leftypol/ a blackened name amongst the rest of the left. Also see >>71484

>most of what you guys believe seems to be supported in general especially in the media and our education system.
No way. I think you're mixing up /leftypol/ and reddit """""""communists""""""", who are mainstream liberals putting on an edgy disguise.

/leftypol/'s ideas are thought of as totally crazy by the educational system and the media. I was a Marxist back in school and I didn't find a single person, teacher or student, who agreed with me.

>>71624
maybe views on protestors are different on 4chan I mostly use 8chan, but I mostly mean on things like being against racism, /pol/ is fighting the system and you guys are on the same side as it or as another example Bernie "Sanders" Glassberg was a very PC candidate as compared to trump. Just generally speaking you guys don't hold a lot of views that wouldn't be welcome say on reddit, twitter, facebook, public discourse, the news, or in any given college classroom especially relative to /pol/. I'm in college now and I know a lot of people who are as well and marxism is more or less the norm these days, especially cultural marxism.

Also on the matter of race relations who would you say counts as Prolitariat? it always seemed too broad to me.

>>71624
maybe this is a misconception, can you given me some specific examples of non-PC /leftypol/ beliefs?

>>71626
>you guys are on the same side as it
Oh, no way. /leftypol/ is completely against the system. For very different reasons than /pol/, to be fair, but /leftypol/ is not at all happy with how things are now.

>being against racism
Views on racism vary on /leftypol/. Most of them think it's stupid, a few tankies support it. However, almost everyone thinks racism is a minor problem that the left needs to stop obsessing over.

>Bernie "Sanders" Glassberg was a very PC candidate as compared to trump
Bernie was a controversial candidate on /leftypol/, and not that popular because he's a socdem masquerading as a socialist. Quite a few of them voted for Trump in the name of accelerationism (thinking that Trump will mess up the world badly enough to trigger a revolution), and most of them didn't vote.

>you guys don't hold a lot of views that wouldn't be welcome say on reddit, twitter, facebook…or in any given college classroom especially relative to /pol/
"Being worried about Islam is logical."
"Racism is a minor issue."
"Gays have their rights, we need to move on."
"No one cares what bathroom trans people use."

>public discourse, the news
"Collectivize the means of production, abolish private property"

>Also on the matter of race relations who would you say counts as Prolitariat? it always seemed too broad to me.
Anyone who has to do long hours of physical work (factory worker, janitor).



/leftypol/'s most fundamental ideal is that the workers should own the means of production. Everyone on the mainstream left (including Bernie Sanders) is against that.

Now I think you're mixing up social democracy and socialism/communism. Social democracy includes stuff like free college, free healthcare, etc. Socialism is when the workers own the factory they work on, and the goods it produces.

>>71629
bernie is less of a democrat and more of a state socialist, instead of the prolitariat seizing power for themselves he seems to think the government can just give it to them through taxes and social programs, i.e. Valenzuela

> Anyone who has to do long hours of physical work
I'm actually more partial to this than how marx described it where it could more or less apply to anyone besides CEOs and factory owners, as most people have little to sell besides their labor. Also it's not that far from the "Working Class" caste in capitalist economic hierarchy which makes it easier to communicate the idea to people with different ideological grounding

the issue I see with the whole idea is the average factory worker probably doesn't know how to run the factory and in fact likely knows very little outside the details of his own job and isn't interested in knowing more or seeing much change as long as he has a job and receives a "fair wage" which to most just seems to be more or less around what his peers make. It might be a bit of a stereotype but a lot of socialist and communist ideologues online seem to think it's a given that the workers will side with them, but the average factory worker, coal miner, truck driver, etc. doesn't seem that interested in political theory or left leaning politics for that matter

>>71630
>Valenzuela
Venezuela*

>>71630
>bernie is less of a democrat and more of a state socialist, instead of the proletariat seizing power for themselves he seems to think the government can just give it to them through taxes and social programs, i.e. Venezuela
I think he just wants more benefits for the poor, he's not interested in any true paradigm shift.

>the average factory worker probably doesn't know how to run the factory and in fact likely knows very little outside the details of his own job and isn't interested in knowing more or seeing much change as long as he has a job and receives a "fair wage" which to most just seems to be more or less around what his peers make.
In the current state, that's true. Reformism like Bernie wants exacerbates this problem, in fact - welfare and free college sap the revolutionary spirit with benefits. Workers become inclined to revolt when things are awful. Thus the Democratic party serves the interests of the bourgeoisie by preventing revolution.

>It might be a bit of a stereotype but a lot of socialist and communist ideologues online seem to think it's a given that the workers will side with them, but the average factory worker, coal miner, truck driver, etc. doesn't seem that interested in political theory or left leaning politics for that matter
This is true. I think they will side with socialists and communists if/when conditions get substantially worse for them.



And that image is vanguardism in a nutshell. Saved.

>>71634
>I think he just wants more benefits for the poor
I'd argue the opposite, he just hates rich people. Policies like the $15/hour minimum wage, increasing taxes, and other policies of his have been shown to actually be really bad for the "poor" as most people in poverty can't find a job in the first place and the overwhelming majority of people currently working at the federal minimum wage to below 15 an hour aren't the "working poor" but middle class college and high school age kids. That's just one example but generally the policies he wanted hurt the rich more than they helped the poor and many could easily be shown to be detrimental to the poor.

> Thus the Democratic party serves the interests of the bourgeoisie by preventing revolution.
The democrats and especially hillary clinton are basically corporatists as far as I can tell so I guess that makes sense.

> I think they will side with socialists and communists if/when conditions get substantially worse for them.
I'm still inclined to disagree, in collapse conditions or some sort of anarchy those that are physically capable and can work with their hands will probably do pretty well relative to the average person, so I'm still not sure they'd see the need for it. To keep it dead simple in such dire times people will likely side with those that have power (meaning guns generally) and those that are capable (suvivalist types think /k/) and from what I've seen of them that wouldn't be /leftypol/

>>71635
>The democrats and especially hillary clinton are basically corporatists
Oh, absolutely. And I can tell you thgat literally only one person on /leftypol/ shills for the democrats, and even he does it under the premise they're a lesser evil.

>To keep it dead simple in such dire times people will likely side with those that have power (meaning guns generally) and those that are capable (suvivalist types think /k/) and from what I've seen of them that wouldn't be /leftypol/
I'm not sure there. /leftypol/ loves guns, and quite a lot of them are /k/.

pic semi related

>>71636
>they're a lesser evil.
I mean relative to what? if anything I'd say that corporatism is worse than capitalism given that it's actually in favor of giving the banks and CEOs political power rather than just giving them carte blanche to do whatever makes the most money

>I'm not sure there. /leftypol/ loves guns, and quite a lot of them are /k/.
I know some of them are, but relative to the average rightwing muh guns hunter, prepper, or NRA type it seems like they're vastly outnumbered especially in terms of gun ownership

What do you think about Yuri the ex-KGB guy who talked about how Marxism was deliberately pumped into the US to subvert and destroy it?

>>71638
>I mean relative to what? if anything I'd say that corporatism is worse than capitalism given that it's actually in favor of giving the banks and CEOs political power rather than just giving them carte blanche to do whatever makes the most money

I agree. Like I said, it was one guy who likes the Democrats, and I think he's wrong.

>I know some of them are, but relative to the average rightwing muh guns hunter, prepper, or NRA type it seems like they're vastly outnumbered especially in terms of gun ownership

That's definitely true. Most of the left is "muh gun control" due to CIA+FBI psyops and infiltration. These secret agencies are also behind the "social justice" crowd, which was started to remove the power behind Occupy Wall Streeet. The CIA has long worked to subvert class action by adding irrelevant issues like "privilege".

>What do you think about Yuri the ex-KGB guy who talked about how Marxism was deliberately pumped into the US to subvert and destroy it?

I don't believe it. Communism is probably the dirtiest word in American politician discourse; even Nazism has a better name. I do believe that social justice and corporatism have been pumped into socialism and communism to destroy THEM.

>>71374
Hi buddeh

>>71640
>Communism is probably the dirtiest word in American politician discourse; even Nazism has a better name.
I can't agree with this, we never see politicians getting smeared as stalin or mao and the millions of innocents killed by them aren't brought up anywhere near as much as the alleged holocaust

>>71644
>I can't agree with this, we never see politicians getting smeared as stalin or mao and the millions of innocents killed by them aren't brought up anywhere near as much as the alleged holocaust
Both of those are true, but self-proclaimed nazis are getting support now from sites like Breitbart (obviously not everyone on the right is a nazi, I'm talking about people who call themselves nazis). I haven't seen any self-proclaimed communists getting support from any part of the news media.

On Mao - he killed more innocents than any other dictator, it's true, but it was out of ignorance and incompetence, not active desire to kill (unlike Stalin or Hitler). Mao was a great revolutionary, but he had absolutely no idea how to run a country. And it didn't help that his subordinates were lying to him nonstop. Here's what I mean:

Let's say a town produces 5 tons of grain. The town director reports that as 20 to try and get promoted.

Then the regional director adds up all the grain from all his regions's reports (all increased to try and get promoted) - it's 100 tons. But that doesn't look good, so he bumps it up to 300.

Province director is disappointed with the agregate of 2350, so he increases it to 4420.

When Mao gets it, the amount of grain they say that town has is 10 times what it actually has. So Mao makes a policy based on every town having way more grain then it actually has, so tons of people starve.



Ignorance doesn't excuse what he did, of course, but it was a rather different thing than when Stalin said "all mountain climbers are in a conspiracy to overthrow me, we need to gulag them all"

>>71650
> but self-proclaimed nazis are getting support now from sites like Breitbart
proofs?

>>71653
Lemme see if I can find it.

>>71359
I've read just about everything that I've come across, from Plato to Evola, and I'm still not sure what to think about politics.
However, the MS modern left disgusts me thanks to their Marxist tendencies and "muh gibs" mentality.
Does /leftypol/ have a plan for addressing the vocal retards on their side of the spectrum? sorry if you've answered this already

>>71653
Can't find it so far. Maybe it doesn't exist after all, and I was rused.

Sorry for the confusion.

>>71659
>MS modern left disgusts me thanks to their Marxist tendencies and "muh gibs" mentality
The modern left doesn't have any Marxist tendencies. Do you mean social democratic tendencies (free college, free healthcare, etc.)?

Marxism is where the workers control the means of production. None of the mainstream modern left is interested in that; they're interested in free college and healthcare. They think working class people are racist misogynistic transphobic [insert various other buzzwords here], and that saying "FUCK Thrackerzod" is a revolutionary action.

>Does /leftypol/ have a plan for addressing the vocal retards on their side of the spectrum?
Well /leftypol/ is not one person, but yes, there are a few plans. I personally think we won't be able to under current conditions, where class action is subverted by the CIA and weakened by relatively good conditions. I have to hope that the mainstream left will realize that free speech is important and that there are more serious issues than which bathroom trans people use. I also hope they'll wake up and see that, as Orwell put it, "If there is hope, it lies in the proles."



Jimmy Dore is the only political talker I know who is even close to /leftypol/ ideas. Here's a good, very short video by him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94eFg1t6PWk



Personally, I'm a transhumanist; I think technology is the way to solve our problems.

Have you ever read Stirner? He's a good read, even if you don't agree with him.

>>71661
no worries, happes to everyone, you gotta make sure to have evidence for such claims.

i would say tho, the mainstream media condemns nazis far more often than it condemns comnies. At least that's the impression that i get, trump is called on to disavow nazis and white supremicists all the damn time

>the mainstream media condemns nazis far more often than it condemns comnies
This is definitely true, but the media doesn't want to talk about commies at all. The corporate left who runs the media doesn't want a pro-worker alternative open. They want it to be the evil racist right-wingers vs. them, so that people vote for them as "the lesser of two evils". The blackout on actual revolutionary activity is disturbingly large.

>>71664
isn't no news good news? especially compared to hearing only bad things about nazis and the like. Besides the media and the mainstream left does promote unions

>>71668
>isn't no news good news? especially compared to hearing only bad things about nazis and the like
Arugably? On one hand it means we aren't being criticized, on ehte other it means rebellious people generally don't end up joining us (and those are the people we really need).
>Besides the media and the mainstream left does promote unions
I've barely seen unions talked about. Does the media really support them?

>>71669
but isn't communism historically bad? what can they report about real world communism that would reflect on the ideology in a positive way?

they don't talk about them a lot, but generally it's only the good things and not stuff about "senior members" taking advantage and costing people their jobs and causing trouble for average people that rely on their work. My friend works for the state transportation in his state in management and he and his co-workers didn't want a strike but the people in charge of the union did and it cost the jobs of a lot of bus drivers, and train conductors, not to mention commuters

>>71616
I'm not at danger. I'm neither a racist which the government specifically targets, nor an inciter of anti-democratism. As it stands, simply holding a particular belief isn't enough to put you away, it's acting on said anti-democratic and racist doctrines (or planning to without reasonable doubt) that'll get you on their radar.
>>71629
>T. gommunism
Right, so now that I'm certain leftypol is filled with psudo-Marxists and communists, maybe even a select few that are Stalinist, riddle me this. Where is the incentive in communism? As someone who greatly almost hates the system of oppression that the russians enforced on the Germans after the war, seeing how much it stunted East Germany (and even then we still came out as one of the best in the east block - I can't imagine how horrible it must have been where they actively suppressed revolutions) I can't really fathom how communism works better than any system we have today, though we can both probably agree it's currently a shitstorm. One of the greatest things that pushed me away from anything where the state has absolute control over the economy (being pretty socialist myself) is a lack of incentive. There's this old saying that originated somewhere in the east block, namely "I'll pretend to work, and you'll pretend to pay me," which resonates especially true with what I've seen of communist nations. All the products they produce are to fit quotas, not to be the best product possible. While a lot of it is built to last because there's not this stupid consumerism culture like in capitalist nations, they are neither good nor efficient. If the state wants 10 tons of piping, why on earth would you switch over to plastic if you're already producing metal pipes? It's not practical for the communists to switch to a better product simply based off of the quota system. Ergo, no incentive. Same thing with the amount of consumer goods. Those goods don't benefit the state's production, so they're often only produced in small numbers, leading to shortages. The waiting line was 10-15 years for a car. Stores were under stocked. What good is the money you work producing shit products to meet shit quota's going to do you, if there's nothing to spend your money on?

>inb4 not real communism
Even if it isn't, how do you solve this problem in a ideal commune society? If you don't need to do anything, why would you? The state or your commune assigns you a job, and we're back at the no incentive issue. There's no incentive to innovate in an already functioning system so progress slows down immensely (unless the state forces it, as with the soviet space program for example) and there's no competition, so there's no incentive to produce better products cause the state or commune is the only one producing it.
>>71629
>Socialism is when the workers own the factory they work on, and the goods it produces.
That's Marxist socialism. Socialism is such a broad term, just like liberal, you can't really claim it means exactly what it applies to your specific socialist belief. Pic related for the first two lines on what my definition is, and this term doesn't apply to many other forms of socialism other than national socialism. It's just like the question, "what is a liberal?" Well, do they mean market liberal, progressive liberal, or any of the other terms that completely screws around the term? While google paints a broad term of socialism, it's still heavily slanted against property rights, and isn't representative of all socialism. To avoid confusion, I think it would be better to specify what kind of socialism you're talking about, because it's such a broad term.

>>71673
> not a racist
so you're anti-science?

>>71677
In the eyes of the left, of course I'm a racist. I would just never act on an individual on the basis of their race, there are intelligent blacks and retarded whites. However, generalizations do exist between races, like whites are generally more intelligent than blacks. I don't buy into the pathetic dogma that every human is the same, because we're not. However, it would be hypocritical of me to advocate for an individual ethnic state and not for a different races, because it's two sided. Having said this, I'm in favor of segregation, just on a national scale. Blacks should have never been introduced into america. This is one of the biggest problems with immigration too, because it was all fine and dandy with good European labour moving to America, where there were predominately whites, but as soon as Hispanics and sand niggers started coming in droves the evils of immigration suddenly become clear.
What I mean by saying I'm not an anti-semite is that I won't spit on a jew just for the fact that he's jewish - I'll be weary of him sure, but the individual is not the group. There are plenty of cases of this in Nazi Germany with Half-Jews being acquitted and honorary Aryans. I won't act on the bases of race, I'll act on the base of their character. Lying sniveling idiots some may be, but until they have revealed that to me, I don't care for judging individual characters. Partially cause it's not allowed, being banned by law and everything here.
>racist
Actually I said not an anti-semite, not racist. Sand niggers can go fuck themselves.

>>71671
State communism is, with almost no debate (you'll see some tankies claiming it's good). Non-state communism worked well in small areas like the Paris Commune and many tribes.

Huh. Last I remember hearing about unions was their broken base of power.

>>71673
>first part
That's good.

>Right, so now that I'm certain leftypol is filled with psudo-Marxists and communists
Yes, a lot. I'm not sure if they're in the majority though, we have a lot of anarchists.

>maybe even a select few that are Stalinist
Yes, our tankies. They are the worst posters on the board.

>Where is the incentive in communism?
I'm not sure; I haven't done that much reading on proper Communist theory. I'm more familiar with socialism and anarchism.

Also, I'm a transhumanist myself.

>rest of that block
Lot of good points.

>Even if it isn't, how do you solve this problem in a ideal commune society? If you don't need to do anything, why would you?
That's where transhumanism can come in. Have the robots do everything that needs done so no one has to do anything. You're still welcome to work or study, but you don't have to in order to survive anymore.

>Marxist socialism
That's what socialism is. But point taken, I should be more precise about it because it is a large ideology.

>>71677
pic related

>>71681
>transhumanism
>literally advocating for a lazy race
How is that going to help the people if they're all lazy fucks that don't need to do anything, it'll be a society filled with degeneracy imo. To be fair though, I know little to nothing about trans humanism, so if you could explain it that'd be great.

>>71616
>ohboyherewego.jpg
Yeah no way over that being a tankie is like being in a cult. The ideology itself only makes sense when you continuously say the ends justify the means over and over again. But in reality it doesn't and because the ends themselves are not ideal due to the Marxist doctrine in which Tankies pursue. So it just ends up degrading into talking points and shitposting which I could understand would be annoying. When I was in the cult an active member of the CPUSA I'd say that tankies weren't the worse though it was the anarchasists who acted super smug and entitled, and this is taking into account that I'm not counting people who are considered SJWs. I'm sorta thankful though for them if it wasn't for them I would have never started questioning things which would lead me to the redpill and dropping Marxism.

>transhumanism
Well anon the problem with transhumanism is we aren't certain that the ends will justify the means yet again. If we accelerate towards progress what are we losing along the way? The truth is that progress itself has a cost and its not always optimal to persue. Just like how those on the right claim that progress at the cost of the environment is worth while I'd say that a good balance is needed. You shouldn't cut down the forest but neither should you ignore humans needs so you need to find a good middle point, and the problem is that Transhumanism in this analogy would be all about cutting down the forest. That and it seems a bit too globalist for comfort and I'm much more of an isolationist.

Threadly reminder to never encourage, enable or positively respond towards /leftypol/ posters.

/leftypol/ is objectively the worst and most hated board on 8chan, often engaged in subversion Psyops against other boards, communities and sites. Furthermore /leftypol/ supports internet censorship against the right wing, dysfunctional political idologies responsible for massmurder and low quality memes that often consist of stolen properties.

Remember to Sage, report and hide

>>71697
He's not baiting, or shilling, or any other bullshit. Can people not have rational discussions without /pol/-lite screeching like those from the reddit invasion? MLP is about love and tolerance, so I'm going to tolerate the shit out of some lefties if they're here for reasonable discourse.

>>71681
>>71699
your pic related is myth #7

>>71697
shoo, the adults are having a discussion. Politics isn't a team sport

>>71689
Personally, I don't care about degeneracy. I think people should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people.

But even with that said, transhumanism cures many of the issues you'd call "degeneracy". It removes the poor and the homeless, not by extermination, but by lifting them up a better, more healthy life. It lets you make true Ubermensch babies through genetic engineering. And there are many more examples.

>>71696
I've found the anarchists much more pleasant to be around, honestly. Perhaps things have changed since then, or we just interacted with different tankies and different anarchists.

>transhumanism in this analogy would be all about cutting down the forest

It certainly could, but it needn't. If we value the environment, we can use technology to preserve the environment better, with things like hydroponic farms and nuclear fusion.

I know that's an analogy, but the point is transhumanism, depending on how it's implemented, can avoid these problems.

>That and it seems a bit too globalist for comfort and I'm much more of an isolationist.

Again, while it probably is most commonly globalist, it needn't be.

>>71697
There's no need to be upset anon. I'm not here to raid or troll, just to talk.

>>71699
>>71701
This is probably not going to be resolved. You have your infographics and charts, I have mine, and neither of ours has convinced the other.

Perhaps we could discuss something else that will be more conducive to debate. Are you interested in conspiracies?

>>71707
depends on the conspiracy there's lots of stuff that surround the jfk assassination, 9/11, hillary's life, MKultra, etc. that raise a lot of questions. Pizza/pedo gate is a whole thing unto itself but i'm not too knowledgeable of it myself. Reptialians and bogdanoff stuff are pretty fun

>transhumanism
How can technological post-scarcity be met considering some of our present conditions? Rare earth metals are only concentrated in select areas of the world, many of which have come across their own problems even then with production. This production is an environmentally damaging process that leaves places inhospitable; a concern that has halted Chinese production. Overall, there are valid fears that is a shortage that only will be enhanced by transhumanist societies. Not just that, but rare earth monopolies have political leverage over other nations- completely antithetical to anti-capitalist sentiment.

"According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) International Energy Outlook 2016, the global supply of crude oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and biofuels is expected to be adequate to meet the world's demand for liquid fuels through 2040."
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=38&t=6
Also consider the fall of exhaustible fuel production and the slow transition to renewables; http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/media/speeches/energy-in-2016.html
Will energy production meet the demand in such hyper-technological societies?

>>71709
not the transhumanist op but theoretically we could get metal from space, pull an asteroid into orbit and hollow it out. Solar is becoming more viable but we need to make progress on nuclear and atomic.

>>71711
But, we can't simply get those resources out of thin air. That will only drive scarcity and has a high risk.

>>71708
I'm interested in all of those except reptilians and bogdanoff. Pizza gate is quite spooky, and I am inclined to believe it's real (though I definitely think it's not the Democrats alone; I think that both parties are full of pedophiles).

>>71709
>How can technological post-scarcity be met considering some of our present conditions? Rare earth metals are only concentrated in select areas of the world, many of which have come across their own problems even then with production. This production is an environmentally damaging process that leaves places inhospitable; a concern that has halted Chinese production.
Asteroids. They're chock full of rare earths that are extremely expensive here.

>Overall, there are valid fears that is a shortage that only will be enhanced by transhumanist societies. Not just that, but rare earth monopolies have political leverage over other nations- completely antithetical to anti-capitalist sentiment.
Definitely valid concerns, but again, asteroids.

>>71711
>>71713
Tugging asteroids into orbit is a bad idea. It's much safer to just do the mining in the asteroid belt and then transport the resources back to Earth/Mars/wherever we're living.

>Also consider the fall of exhaustible fuel production and the slow transition to renewables;
Renewables are the way forward. Fusion and solar are the twin power technologies of the future.

>Will energy production meet the demand in such hyper-technological societies?
It's certainly doable. If they will do it, I don't know.,

>>71713
solar panels almost literally pull energy out of thin air, we just need a spaceship engine that runs on renewable power and AI workers to do the mining in space

>>71714
it's definitely both parties, it's he whole establishment and much of the rich and the elite; i.e. hollywood and bankers. IDK if /leftypol/ doesn't know this but /pol/ generally hates most republicans and conservatives

>>71717
Well, depends on which /pol/.

8/pol/ is nothing but ultra hardline nazis and monarchists and theocrats. 4/pol/ is mostly redditors from /r/the_donald. Where does /mlpol/ fall? Old/pol/, from the Ron Paul days?

>it's definitely both parties, it's he whole establishment and much of the rich and the elite; i.e. hollywood and bankers.
I agree there too, and I think Trump is in the circle as well.

>>71707
>I've found the anarchists much more pleasant to be around, honestly.
Might have been because I was a Tankie myself at the time. Some of the anarchists were also boarderline SJW. Never been on lefty/pol/ so I can't really say much about that crowd's Tankies and anarchists/ancoms. Still both ideologies don't make a lot of sense when you think about it.

Tankies are crazy manicas who want a total controled big brother state 1 because they want to be edgy and 2 because muh ends justify the means. So it becomes a numbers game justifying totalitarianism which regardless of how you put it isn't the type of place you'd want to live.

Anarchists do just as many mental loops. Classical anarchists and ancoms want a world where everyone is both free and equal, which in nature is impossible to maintain. If people are free then they are free to make voltary transactions on their labor which in turn forms classes which makes everyone unequal. Thats why ancaps anarchy won't last and its a meme ideology. Ancoms and classical anarchists have the opposite problem which is they wish to maintain the state of anarchy through social pressure, however these communes which form this pressure in itself removes peoples freedoms to make these transactions and form hierarchies.
Which is why anarchists are also either stupid or disingenuous.

>it needn't be.
Thats why I'm wary of jumping onto any definite ideological group now. I guess if someone were to ask what I am now I'd have to say politically incorrect just because of how weird my ideology is now. A mix of Fascism, Nat Soc, monarchism, and libertarianism. I find it much easier explaining my postion rather then saying x is my ideology.

However the problem yet again is progress comes with a cost and is it worth while pursuing it? Sure nuclear fusion and hydroponic farms once able to be implemented on a large scale would aid a lot of humanity but who would they hurt? What would their side effects be? Rushing towards progress without a firm vision other then progress is dangerous anon.

>You have your infographics and charts, I have mine, and neither of ours has convinced the other.
I sorta want to see more of your charts that counter what >>71699 posted. I have yet to find a lot that counters race realism's arguments that isn't already debunked in the infographic posted.

>>71715
>>71714
My first point was the rare earth material dilemma. These are mining operations that will Expend as much resources they take potentially.

>>71718
there's an branch of /mlpol/ running a board on 8/pol/ i came here from there so i'd say both old/pol/ and 8/pol/ the horse pussy scares off the redditors that's one of the things we loved about the original /mlpol/

trump has met epstien he's not involved but he definitely knows about it and it's telling that sessions has been coming down pretty hard on pedo rings

>>71718
>Where does /mlpol/ fall? Old/pol/, from the Ron Paul days?
Like I said in >>71719 I've sorta made my own system at this point, but we have a good mix anons with nat socs, fascists, and lolberatrians leanings. We also have a lot of /mlp/ friends still learning so I'd overall say its a mix of old4/pol/, 8/pol/, and /mlp/.

>>71720
we can make worker robots and shuttles for non-humans out of recycled plastic and space junk if push comes to shove the biggest issue is energy, coal and oil work fine on earth but you can't refuel after leaving the atmosphere

>>71719
I found tankies to always ruin threads with ">anarkiddies daydreaming again", while anarchists get good discussion going.

>However the problem yet again is progress comes with a cost and is it worth while pursuing it? Sure nuclear fusion and hydroponic farms once able to be implemented on a large scale would aid a lot of humanity but who would they hurt? What would their side effects be? Rushing towards progress without a firm vision other then progress is dangerous anon.

Perhaps, but I'm of the opinion that NOT rushing towards progress is more dangerous. Our current method of life is unsustainable economically, politically, socially, and environmentally. We need better technology to progress, and we need to do it soon.

>I sorta want to see more of your charts that counter what >>71699 posted. I have yet to find a lot that counters race realism's arguments that isn't already debunked in the infographic posted.

I'm not sure if I have any more. My unsorted folder is approaching 10k. I'll look around for them.

>>71720
Ah, okay.

>>71721
Trump considers Epstein one of his closest friends. I don't think TPTB would have allowed someone outside of their manipulation to come to office.

See: Ron Paul. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_WBo4sfmi4

>>71724
>NOT rushing towards progress is more dangerous.
Stagnation is a sign your society is dead I'll agree on that. So you need to be continuously moving forward I'll also agree on that. But saying you want to rush progress without a good idea of what you want to progress towards will let others manipulate you to what they want.

And I'm not a fan of puppeteers.

>>71724
the establishment and their pawns were railing against him the whole election and continued doing so the last 8 months, maybe epstein will get a pardon in exchange for ratting out bigger fish, i don't trust completely but there's enough good news, pedos being arrested, and children being saved, that i'm quite content to let his presidency play out for another 7 years and 4 months. Most on /pol/ once you root past the shitposters, newfags, shills, etc. saw trump as basically 2 things; hilarious, and a good step in the right direction. What will really be important is 2024, for your side i'd recommend tulsi gabbard the congresswoman from hawaii her political views certainly aren't my cup of tea but she's delightful and very reasonable especially relative to everyone else on the left, that said I sincerely hope your side loses again and we're able to get a far-right race realist and nationalist

>>71726
>last line
Hahaha.

>everything else
I know what I want. I'm just saying that the transhumanist philosophy can be taken in quite a few directions.

>>71728
>the establishment and their pawns were railing against him the whole election and continued doing so the last 8 months
Sure, but I'm dubious. I think he's controlled opposition. They rally against controlled opposition and have a moratorium on true outsiders (i.e., Ron Paul).

>What will really be important is 2024, for your side i'd recommend tulsi gabbard the congresswoman from hawaii
She's alright, I don't think she really matters that much though. Truth be told, I think the presidental election is just another example of the "bread and circuses".

I'll start caring about the results of the election when we start getting a primitivist (to vote against) or transhumanist candidate.

>that said I sincerely hope your side loses again
My side has literally never won an election as far as I know. I don't think we've even been up for voting more than 10 times. Transhumanism is an obscure ideology, and it's not embraced by anyone in the political sphere that I know of.

>>71733
>I know what I want
But anon I don't know what you want and you haven't stated it…

>>71733
were you watching the same election? all the rest of the republican caditates were puppeteered empty suits except maybe the fatass and sleepy nigger, but who knows what they were doing there. Except kasich he just wanted lunch

republican democracy does slow down or negate he possibility of drastic change but it's certainly not meaningless, i would prefer to violently overthrow congress though

i meant your side as in the left in general rather than marxists or transhumanists specifically

>>71733
>transhumanist
You might enjoy /cyb/

>>71737
Oh, sorry. Didn't realize I never formulated it in one spot.

I want a full digitization process (if >>71400 is right) or genetic engineering+robotic implants and fabricators (if he's wrong). I want it to be voluntary but freely available to all people. I want asteroid mining and solar panel arrays, maybe a dyson swarm one day. I want the robotic (or engineered biological) descendants of humanity to go out and colonize the galaxy.

I think humanity is on the cusp of the next "fish walks on land" moment, and that everything that has happened so far in recorded human history is but a prelude. The first act is about is to begin.

>>71738
Ah, okay.

I don't feel any kinship to corporatists like Hillary or SJWs. In fact, I think their failure might have been a good thing. Perhaps 2020 or 2024 will lead to a radical left candidate.

>>71740
I checked it out, might give it a better look sometime later. Deus Ex is one of my favorite videogames, and I picked the Merge with Helious ending without hesitation.

>>71742
unless some really crazy bullshit happens trump will win 2020 easily the states he needs to hold to win are the rust belt and coal mining and manufacturing have already made small recovery

>>71745
I think you're probably right, though for another reason. Every president since and including Bill Clinton has lasted 2 terms.

>>71747
if no red states flipped for hillary no red states will flip against an incombent, more than anything else people don't like change. Better the devil you know and all

>>71745
Don't be overly optimistic. The second battle will be far greater than the first.
In 2020, Trump will be the incumbent, losing his "outsider" advantage, and he'll also have to answer for everything that went wrong, or failed to be accomplished, during his term.
The more important issue though is Congress. As of right now, the Conservacucks haven't made very much progress, and without legislative achievements they'll have a harder time winning their own states (especially for the senate), meaning that some of them will feel pushed to move closer to the center, feeding into the vicious cycle of cuckoldry. Right now, the economy is doing well because the market is confident and anticipating tax cuts and regulation lifting under this administration, but if those fixes don't come soon enough, the economy could potentially become unstable. All the Democraps will have to do is keep their mouths shut and refuse to vote on anything while the neocons in Congress continue to be indecisive.
We may have won the last battle, but the war isn't even close to being over. The first battle was one of concentration and anticipation, the next battle will be to work at a local level and encourage our volk to establish contact with their elected officials: a radically different game, but a much more important one. So long as accomplishments are made, meme warriors will be able to spread and hype them, but it's very important that our Congress gets it's shit together and starts acting now.

>>71761
we should still fight, we can redpill more people and take more states away from the left but as far as winning what matters are the current swing states and he won the swing states on the economy and the economy has been improving since he took office. Things could change and nothing is certain but if current trends continue it'll be an uphill battle for the left in 2020. Still no need to rest on our laurels we could take new jersey and other states from the left with a bit of effort

>>71761
to fix congress we need term limits, campaign finance reform, voter id laws, and an end to gerrymandering

>>71765
>need term limits
Fuck no bad idea and doesn't work, look at the states that have implemented it. Find another way to kick out the oldguard that are out of touch with the people rather then make arbitrary term limits which make it so those who are actually good at what they do and in touch with their base punished.

>>71742
Interesting, I myself dream of a day when we can step foot beyond our world. I personally think we need a world confederation first in order to do so, but one not based on the UN but rather on separate competing ethno states.

>>71723
It's not so much the fuel issue, but the cost (in resources and in money) of R&D, missions, and all that combined with a more rapid consumption of rare earth metals. The problem is the latter unless transtechies are going to do these intergalactic mining operations now while we have oil reserves and our supply of rare metals. Even then will we have to ration. From what I see of it, I don't think it's plausible. Some factors like mass global It's not that I'm against transhumanism (as a concept with), but the planet isn't certainly a cornucopia with some resources (humans on the other hand maybe not.) Eventually societies are going have to cut back their use. Some booming, yet useless, industries are going to die like phone producers, but that will be the better when we want to shoot for the stars later. In my opinion, I think human ascendance will come with gene enhancing eugenics, and that certainly seems like a less costly venture than mechanized humans connected to neural networks, etc. I definitely don't see transhumanism being an anarchist effort at least in the first stages. But, maybe I might be extrapolating. Here are some figures that I pulled up:
>The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per missionhttps://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10
>“To provide most of our power through renewables would take hundreds of times the amount of rare earth metals that we are mining today,” said Thomas Graedel, Clifton R. Musser Professor of Industrial Ecology and professor of geology and geophysics at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies."
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-will-we-have-enough/
>The MESSENGER mission cost $280 million (which, in reality, isn't a vast amount for a space mission). The launch of a space shuttle costs $450 million and there have been about 130 of them. It cost $1.7 billion to build just one of the five-strong fleet.
>Finally, the International Space Station has, over the years of its existence, cost an estimated $142 billion and that's not including the plethora of smaller space missions, other space agencies and other expenses in space exploration.
https://www.seeker.com/space-exploration-at-what-cost-1765208928.html

These are in no way to account for space mining costs (since it never has happened), but these can give you a guess on the sort of expenses that are spent in space.

But, there's hope!
https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-69-million-research-rare-earth-elements-coal-and-coal-byproducts
https://qz.com/1004718/the-us-coal-industrys-future-could-be-to-mine-metals-for-wind-turbines/

>>71775
This is also helpful.
http://costs.infomine.com/costdatacenter/miningcostmodel.aspx
Hopefully I don't land that GET.

>>71775
This was a weird line I didn't leave out.
>Some factors like mass global
>Some factors like mass global cooperation are out of reach as of now.
Now, what I meant by this was to emphasize my point of rationing by implying it will have to be a global ration.

>>71775
Mining coal for rare metals actually gives me hope and a spry feeling. I like these alternative methods such as hydrogen fuel and nuclear power.

>>71775
>>71778
>>71780
interesting…

Thanks for the links anon.

>>71787
I await your response.

>>71788
Might take a while, going to be busy the rest of the day. Should be able to reply sometime tomorrow.

>>71775
> I think human ascendance will come with gene enhancing eugenics, and that certainly seems like a less costly venture than mechanized humans connected to neural networks, etc. I definitely don't see transhumanism being an anarchist effort at least in the first stages.

I think it will come with nootropics (smart drugs) and genetically modified super probiotics. We are getting close.

>>71811
Most definitely. You should see some of the specimens scientists are studying to synthesise these drugs. Super men who can survive extreme cold and feel no pain.

>>71707
>Personally, I don't care about degeneracy. I think people should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people.
This is as low as you can go before it flips negative for society. Because it is so low it easily crosses the border line, you mention, repeatedly. This is the naturally occurring entropy of the universe gaining a foothold due to freedom (which is another way of saying chaos). And because entropy is a continuous force you'll always fall below the line mentioned and be forced to recover over and over again. This thinking presumes that people won't want to degrade further simply through apathy and laziness.

>But even with that said, transhumanism cures many of the issues you'd call "degeneracy". It removes the poor and the homeless, not by extermination, but by lifting them up a better, more healthy life. It lets you make true Ubermensch babies through genetic engineering. And there are many more examples.
Superior ability breeds superior ambition. To remove the human from the human you will be removing the human.

>I know that's an analogy, but the point is transhumanism, depending on how it's implemented, can avoid these problems.
Everything works perfectly ideally. But ideal doesn't exist in the real world. Nature exploits all.

>pizzagate
Pic #1

>I want a full digitization process (if >>71400 is right) or genetic engineering+robotic implants and fabricators (if he's wrong). I want it to be voluntary but freely available to all people. I want asteroid mining and solar panel arrays, maybe a dyson swarm one day. I want the robotic (or engineered biological) descendants of humanity to go out and colonize the galaxy.
I see a number of problems here. This divides humanity and humanity loves to fight those with obvious differences, because economic problems always come and under stress blame gets put on groups that are being successful. Once the augmented start winning it will be an existential conflict for unaugmented humanity.
Free stuff has to be paid for by someone, it's already doomed. I do agree that efficient space colonisation does include genetic engineering. I also strongly suspect we are already doing that, but we interpret it as aliens, then reinterpret that as fantasy and discount it as not real. Basically humanity is already doing what you suggest in secret and left Earth to the natural humans.
The result of WWII was a panic regarding technology advances being combined with war. All the major powers went dark on technology advancement. There is/are break away civilisation(s) in my view already.

My view on ideology is that every solution is the next problem. And so we just cycle through ideologies. Pic #2. The act of solving the current problem is just energy that makes the wheel turn.

>>71359
I believe anything i obtain through harvest, manufacture, trade or exchanged labour should be mine and nobody has any claim over what is mine or anybody elses unless an agreement between consenting parties is made. Why is that considered "borguais"? Seems fair to me.

>>71788
Alright. You're right about the planet not being full of resources, and that societies will have to cut back their use. Transhumanism won't be anarchist at first, though it probably will end up that way.

The coal byproduct thing is REALLY cool.

>>71811
>>71869
We're getting close, yes.

>>71871
>first pic
Thank you! I haven't seen that before.

>second pic
>>left-libertarian
>CIA
>>authoritarian right
>revolution
>>right-libertarian
>stormfag

I honestly can't tell if that image is shitposting or not. Please clarify.

>first paragraph
I honestly understand what you're trying to say.

>rest of the first half
Humans just need to be more ideal to work perfectly, and that's what transhumanism does.

>Free stuff has to be paid for by someone, it's already doomed.
Open source stuff often isn't. Quite a few programs are done as labors of love.

>rest of the second half
Quite a few good points there.

>I also strongly suspect we are already doing that, but we interpret it as aliens, then reinterpret that as fantasy and discount it as not real. Basically humanity is already doing what you suggest in secret and left Earth to the natural humans.
That one British autistic hacker did find files on "extraplanetary officers". I'd believe at least some of the aliens are earthborne, but I doubt all of them are.

>>71922
It's not. What becomes bourgeoisie is when you switch from doing stuff yourself to having people do it for you, and then take most of the money.

>>71942
>Transhumanism won't be anarchist at first, though it probably will end up that way.
I want to know how that transition would occur theoretically. I have never read any transhumanist literature. I suspect that that your theory entails that the anarchist stage will be reached when society reaches post-scarcity, as everyone will be sufficiently able to provide their means of independent control. But, I want to know how that would work even without reaching post-scarcity.

>>71942
That comes under "an agreement between consenting parties"
>"Hey group of people starving, come do this menial task and ill give you this much of barter item/currency"
They can say no or leave when they want.

>>71943
Read pic related

>>71948
I like what you imply. Read that before.

>>71943
>I suspect that that your theory entails that the anarchist stage will be reached when society reaches post-scarcity, as everyone will be sufficiently able to provide their means of independent control.
Yes.
>But, I want to know how that would work even without reaching post-scarcity.
The anarcho side of anarcho-transhumanism is only reachable once scarcity is removed, and scarcity can't be removed yet (probably will be in 30-50 years).

Without reaching post-scarcity, it's harder. I think it can be done, but I'm not sure how.

>>71947
Would you call yourself an ancap?

>>71359
do you believe white genocide is happening, and do you understand it's being done on purpose?

>>71420
fuck you

>>72193
delet this

>>72195
no idiot

>>72201
no bully!