What is the biggest reoccurring mistake in history?

OP

>>44314
Genocide

Letting liberals breed

>>44314
letting powerful families stay powerful.

Trusting people.

>>44314
Invading Russia in the winter

File: fate_of_empires.jpg (278KB, 1000x976px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1000x976px

Take a wild fucking guess.

>>44314
Partisan politics

Decadence followed by extremism which causes major loss in lives. Then things fix themselves, then decadence sets in again.
I believe we're seeing this in Western world right now. I could be wrong though.

>>44314
war

Invading Afghanistan.

>>44314
People that refuse to study history and learn from the mistakes that happened to peoples and empires before them.

Not enforcing a single national identity.

>>44373
>>>/pol/

>>44363
>tfw usa in in age of decadence
>tfw uk is in age of decadence
>tfw canada is in age of decadence
>tfw any wealthy country is in age of decadence

>>44361
/thread

women's rights

people still believe the following phrase:

>"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

>>44459
when will it end

>>44361
i just came to this thread to say this

>>44413
I could be wrong though.

You are wrong. Every cultures like to see its own era as degenerate and decadent, protip: you're not special. Even Romans during their golden age thought that they were living in a time of moral bankruptcy.

>>44314
4chan

>>44462
/thread

>>44373
>>44373
>>44373

>>44314
racism u.u

>>44508
I'm aware of that, but look up how Rome ended.

>>44454
Have you ever been to /pol/?

Revolutions that aim to make the world a better place by completely remodelling society according to the ideas of intellectuals.

>>44361
Good one.

>>44582
>but look up how Rome ended.

Trust me, it's not for the reasons that you are thinking of, influenced as you are by modern day concerns about illegal immigration and morality.

>>44314
Germany not having an alliance with Russia during the ww2 era was a retarded mistake. Now that I think about it, why didn't Adolf make the smart move and team up with the Russians?

also these
>>44361
>>44462

>>44361
only the Mongols were able to pull that one off

>>44314
Democracy

Liberalism/communism

>>44659
I'm aware of other reasons, but you can't deny decadence of it's citizens played part.
I mean, they pretty much handed over their defense to barbarians.
It's clear civic virtues of earlier Romans were pretty much gone by then.

>>44361
But Hitler and Napoleon invaded in the summer.

>>44417
This is the post-modern version of this>>44361

>>44665
Seriously? Hitler hated communists, and Stalin hated fascists.
Don't try to give me some horseshoe theory bullshit either

>>44516
Pretty accurate response, actually
http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti%20from%20Pompeii.htm

>>44721
and they stayed for the winter.

attacking in the summer was a good idea, but its pointless if you decide to stay afterward when old man winter comes along and flash freezes your entire fucking army

>>44462
How is this a "reoccurring mistake in history"? Even if you truly believe women's rights is a mistake, it's certainly not reoccurring. This era is the first in history where a significant portion of the world is more or less gender-equal.

Libs/commies
women

>>44361
Land war in Asia.

>>44665
Going to war against Britain, France etc. with the Soviets on his side is the last thing Hitler would've done. It would render his entire ideology pointless.

>>44665
>Now that I think about it, why didn't Adolf make the smart move and team up with the Russians?
He did, but he only used it to fuck with Poland.

>>44819
"women were a mistake"
-god

>>44361
nice meme

>>44314
Not learning from history.

X has been tried n times and has failed, let's try X again because we're so much smarter now.

File: neetsoftheworldunite.jpg (93KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 960x720px

>>44314
Communism.
Although I do hope to see the west fall to communism.

>>44314
The transition from nationalism to cosmopolitanism among a society's elite/ruling class.

It happens to every great civilization sooner or later, but because most of the world still operates on the basis of nationalism, it puts them at a massive disadvantage and ends up destroying them or rendering them irrelevant in the long run.

>>44593
Are you seriously implying "Tolerating mudslimes is the biggest reoccurring mistake in history" isn't a /pol/-tier response?

>>44899
They ruined our immortality with their faggot >muh apple shit.

/his/ is disgustingly /pol/ infested beyond recovery already

>>44665
Hitler hated Communism, and he also hated Slavs more than any other ethnic group aside from Jews. That was his whole idea of lebensraum. Genocide/assimilate all the Slavs and resettle the land with Germans.

>>44698
>but you can't deny decadence of it's citizens played part.

Yes I can. The citizens of Rome were always pathetic cunts throughout their entire existence. Before the rise of nationalism in the 1700s nobody gave two shits about fighting for "their" country. It was policy on the part of the emperors to hire barbarian troops instead of Roman ones since they usually had a shit ton of experience from fighting beyond the frontiers, plus local aristocrats did not want to give up essential manpower on their farms by letting their workers become soldiers.

>It's clear civic virtues of earlier Romans were pretty much gone by then.

You sound like a Roman author. Stop buying into their mentality. People fought for gold and rape only in the ancient world.

>>44361

desu this baka

>>44314
Not realizing history repeats itself.
The Fate Of Empires and Search For Survival, John Glubb.

>>44984
There's a pretty big overlap in the interests of people that browse /pol/ and /his/.

Out of curiosity which board did you frequent most before coming here?

>>45152
/lit/

History image boards.

>>44827
Never trust a Sicillian when death is on the line!

>>45152
(not him)
/a/ and /int/. I also occasionally troll and instigate rage on /pol/ (against the people who have /pol/-tier views)

>>45152
This board will probably be a clash of the /int/er/pol/ and /lit/ crowds whenever something as a matter of opinion comes up.

>>45171
>>45199
Again, just curious; is it the views of /pol/ that offend you or is it just the shitposting race hate that annoys you?

(In case you didn't guess I frequent /pol/)

>>45279
shitposting/things that will obviously cause derail

>>45279
Not those guys but coming from /lit/ I expected blatant naziboo shitposting and all that, so far it hasn't been too bad actually, compared to my expectations.
I have no problem with /pol/ generally though I admit I've never as much as visited it, if you guys keep your shitposting and derailing to a minimum I don't mind sharing a history board with you.

Letting ideology dictate your political decision.

It never ends well.

>>45279
I do think some of the viewpoints held on /pol/ are stupid and/or unsupported and/or not sufficiently nuanced (so obviously I disagree with those), but that alone would not make me go instigate stuff (as opposed to normally debating). It's the constant shitposting and lack of an atmosphere conducting to actual discussion that makes me do that sometimes.

>>45152
/a/, /r9k/, /pol/, /tv/

Letting the Jews back in

>>45279
/pol/ bitches about hugboxes and is ironically a hugbox themselves. Their theories about jews and shit are absolutely insane and if you're not 100% white supremacist gas the kikes race war now you're a "kek."

>>44334
>Genocide
>Mistake

>>45436
>kek
forgot about the filter. c.uck.

>>45436
>>45386
>>45349
>>45336

Thanks for the mini-survey lads. I'm looking forward to the future discussion we can all have, and personally I think /pol/ provides a refreshing view on the now widely accepted left-wing ideology. It's just a nice place to express contrarian views without being labelled.

That being said it is fucking hilariously toxic and most times retarded.

>>45436
The Jewish theories were mainstream until WW2, doofus, everyone knew they were up to no good

>>44314
Sending troops to the Middle East.

>>44361
loving
every
laugh

>>44724
but countries invade Afghanistan to make money in opiates. It's a business takeover.

>>45436
I wish it was still that interesting. Nowadays they're all just generic conservatives who spend all day complaining about liberals and is probably one of the most "blue pilled" communities there is.

diversity.

Theocracy.

File: 1433298395697.gif (84KB, 403x392px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 403x392px

>>44475

>>45510
I'm all for different viewpoints, but I have to say something when there's blatant, extreme /pol/posting and/or /pol/-shitposting when the sticky outright advises against it. But anyway, back to the thread

File: 159.jpg (11KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 251x242px

>>44361
>history board
>invading russia in the winter meme

STOP

>>45510
>I think /pol/ provides a refreshing view on the now widely accepted left-wing ideology.
Expressing a non-mainstream view is fine. But usually /pol/ does so in a LOL MUDSLIMES ARE EVIL AND DESERVE DEATH / KEK KIKES ARE THE ETERNAL SWINDLERS / EUROPEANS ARE INHERENT SUPERIOR. THERE ARE NO COMPLICATED/MULTIVARIATE REASONS FOR THEM PULLING AHEAD HISTORICALLY etc etc etc and so on and so forth manner

>>44724
>post-modern
Alexander the Great.

Honestly, I think all the world's biggest problems are unique to this age

>overpopulation
>fragility of the globalized economy
>world police not letting any 2 groups of people play out their differences on the battlefield

These weren't an issue before.

>>45680
But muh buttons.

>>45021
That's a pretty radical view man. Care to back it up with something?
From shit I read, it really seemed Romans, at least Roman citizens, were rather ''nationalistic''.
I mean of course gold and rape was big motive, but you can't really deny they didn't have some sense of ''Romanness''.

>>45688
You have massive misconceptions about a board you barely go on and instead create generalizations about.

I think the phrase "/pol/" or ">>>/pol/" should be banned from /his/ for the time being.

Jealousy

File: ian-curtis.jpg (595KB, 2197x1281px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 2197x1281px

>>44475

>>45711
1st world countries have no overpopulation problem, yet they are the ones encouraged to have less kids.

File: 1434337825887.jpg (95KB, 653x490px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 653x490px

>>45021
>you will never fight for gold and rape

>>44314

muliticulturalism

>>45805
The hell are you talking about? I go on /pol/ every day or so and you can't say "Jew" without getting spammed with "le happy merchant meme".

>>45711
Honestly overpopulation is mostly a non-issue, most countries have plenty of space, except in a few cases (Bangladesh most notably.)

>>45845
The expectations and economic realities of a first-world economy makes the cost of one kid much harder to bear than even 3-4 kids in a savage country.

In India or Africa or wherever, all you have to do is provide enough food to keep your kids from starving. In America, you've got to pay for an education that's likely to cost $100k+.

>>45845
I would call almost 17 million people on 41.543km2 (population density of 408km2) pretty overpopulated.

>>45767
>From shit I read, it really seemed Romans, at least Roman citizens, were rather ''nationalistic''.

Not to the extent of actually doing something about it. Notice how nobody revolted against barbarian takeover? It didn't matter who your landlord was, hell, Roman taxes were considered incredibly demanding.

There was a sense of Roman-ness but nobody was willing to die for it, or even to put their lives on the line. People just wanted to get through the day.

>>45711
>>world police not letting any 2 groups of people play out their differences on the battlefield

Fucking this

This one thing has probably caused more damage to the geopolitical and social structure of the world than anything else in history.

>>45805
>You have massive misconceptions about a board you barely go on and instead create generalizations about.
Are you seriously telling me that, on /pol/, there is not commonly expressed sentiments like "the jews did this / the jews are ruining Europe / etc" and "Muslims are shit / expell all sandniggers from my country / nuke the middle east and Mecca / Muslims are all hateful and the quran commands them to be in a constant state of war / Muslims ruin every country they form a large percentage of" and "europeans are based, unlike them niggers / europeans have made all of the important advances that matter / africa literally has contributed nothing to the world/ etc"?

Even if you were to believe such things, at least seriously explain why you think so. /pol/ usually doesn't even do that. You are inane to think otherwise.

>>45938
>the problem of overpopulation is lack of space
Wew

>>45938
Overpopulation is more about resource consumption than physical space.

Basically, find the scarcest resource used in a commodity that most people use, and that's the limiting factor for your population. Today, that might be oil or that might be rare-Earth elements used in computers and mobile phones. In any case, there is a limit, and it's pretty inflexible. Once you pass the limit, quality of life takes a nose dive as things that were previously universally available become expensive luxuries.

>>46016
>commonly expressed
>/pol/ is one person
If you ask a nationalist what his ideal world would be, it would be for all races to have countries of their own exclusively. Genocide doesn't even come into it until people like you begin making wild assumptions.

>>45805
You've got to be pulling my chain here. Are you blind?

>>44361
Russia isn't even that cold though.

>>44363
(e) would be true if not for religion

I'm no history nerd but I'm pretty sure this is the first time people are disregarding religion as something of importance.

I don't recall anything significant about people not believing in gods in the past history of humanity.

>>44343

Civilizations tend to remain stable when the elite remain the elite.

>>45011
>Hitler hated Communism

Why his party had "socialist" in the name then? Legit question.

>>44984
I fucking said a history board would just be /pol/ 2.0 and all of you cunts ignored me

>>46108
Substitute atheism and Deism.

>>44314
Not learning with the europeans that small countries are better than big countries.

>>46136
Where's your source?

>>46277

Where's yours?

>>46075
Explain how "commonly expressed" means "/pol/ is one person". Because it doesn't and that is obvious. Just because a view is commonly said on /pol/ doesn't mean /pol/ is one person.

>If you ask a nationalist what his ideal world would be, it would be for all races to have countries of their own exclusively.
What is the point of this statement?

>Genocide doesn't even come into it until people like you begin making wild assumptions.
Improve your reading comprehension and stop putting words in my mouth. When did I claim that a nationalist expression the view you randomly posited above means that he advocates genocide? On /pol/, I literally can find quite easily explicit mentions of things such as "Kick all the muslims out of europe / bomb mecca". If you haven't seen these, you are the one not looking at /pol/ often enough.

Are you seriously arguing that /pol/ does not have a atmosphere that is toxic for serious debate?

File: 1332539007358.png (108KB, 329x289px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 329x289px

>>46139
>socialism == communism

>>44459
I think the USA hasn't got to the age of intellect yet

no joke, I can't think of any philosopher, scientist or even novel writer that was as significant as the greek ones or the roman ones or the ones in the age of enlightenment

>>46108
I think it's much more like a general apathy towards religious rituals that are generally associated with keeping the community together and less about people donning their fedoras and actively rejecting all aspects of religion in general. Like for example I was still raised as a Catholic and did all of the coming of age stuff but I don't practice it at all as an adult and don't really believe any of it. I know far more people like that than active atheists.

>>46295
I didn't make any dubious claim, my friend.

>>45965
Well yeah, in 5th century. That's kinda my point.
By then, Roman culture slowly degenerated.

>>45019
When has this ever seriously happened on a large scale multiple times?

>>46322
>I can find someone saying "nuke Mecca"
>everyone on /pol/ literally wants this to happen
This is what you sound like.
If you want a forum where you're only allowed to hold opinions that are neutral or antagonistic towards the preservation of the White race, then perhaps reddit will be more to your liking.

Fighting the Mongols?

File: image.jpg (235KB, 792x792px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 792x792px

>>45805
/pol/ster please go. We don't want you on our fledging board. You are a bad influence.

>>46414
>letting powerful families stay powerful.

>>46510
>we

File: Schopenhaueronwomen.png (465KB, 683x984px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 683x984px

>>44314
Democracy

>>45907
>>46016
First off, /pol/ is a big board. You can't deny that there isn't a large and diverse userbase there, just look at the flags.
Secondly, /pol/ is a rather unique community on 4chan with its own memes and board culture. It is up to you to discern wether you are being memed at or if people are genuinely involving you in a conversation. Yes, that's counter intuitive to getting people to learn new things, but just look at /a/. If you ask for a favorite anime or say certain things you will get memed out of existence. That is how they preserve their identity and congruence on the board.

I can never vouch for the entirety of views expressed on /pol/, there are too many people with their own reasons for holding their beliefs. Often times these beliefs are boiled down to easy to spread memes that lose the original knowledge and intent of the idea. Take the Jews meme for example. It's funny to think that these ugly looking imp creatures are causing all your problems through subversion. However, it is undeniable that despite their small population, many jews hold a massively disproportionate amount of power over people and society. So despite the meme being racist and wrong, there is some truth inside of it that is revealed to people who don't automatically reject the offensive things shown to them.

/pol/ is not one person. /pol/ also does not like to spoonfeed. /pol/ likes even less to engage in sophisms with people who clearly look down on them of find their ideas insane.
Create unbiased threads with the intent of learning, foster discussion and use intelligent questioning. You will be amazed at how much people are willing to teach you and what you can learn.

>>46426
>Well yeah, in 5th century. That's kinda my point.
>By then, Roman culture slowly degenerated.

My comments are applicable from the 2nd century BC to the 18th century. Despite what Roman authors will tell you, people didn't fight "for Rome", they fought because soldier prior to the 4th century was a good career which stopped you becoming a pauper begging for scraps and allowed you to fuck foreign sluts and have a donative every so often.

Romans never lost their cultural bloodthirstiness though.

>>46322
>that is toxic for serious debate?

lol at "toxic"

You just can't handle the banter. I advise you go back to Reddit where you can censor things that make you feel bad. And no, people disagreeing with you is not "censorship"

>>46510
>You are a bad influence.

Are you afraid that your opinions might change through open discourse?

>>46496
As opposed to doing what?

It's not like throughout history people have constantly sought out step people to fight them

>>45805
This, please.

Invading Russia

>>46539
That wasn't me, though.

>>46386
but if you think about it, you didn't have a choice.

I'm not talking about fedorism, I mean the personal thinking, the connecting the dots with the help of what evidence we have as of now.

People are starting to doubt, not because their ruler is a fucking idiot, but because we think we are getting more accurate answers from sources other than blind faith

File: 1446404233481.png (2MB, 1189x8256px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1189x8256px

>>44343
Yeah I tend to disagree.

>>46379
It was easier to be seminal in many fields back then, as there was less to know.

Franklin, Tesla, Jefferson, Feynman, Edison, and Pauling are examples of incredibly significant American figures (as significant as any Greek or Roman in their respective fields). I suppose the familiarity of those names reduces the mystic aura of greatness that great people are supposed to have.

In terms of writers, America has no shortage of talents past and present. Emerson, Thoreau, Joyce, Hemingway, Faulkner, Poe, Twain, Steinbeck, etc, although I'm not entirely sure how comparable they are to ancient writers.

>>44459
What stage is 4chan in?

>>46139
Firstly, communism and socialism are different things. Socialism seeks for the state to provide welfare to the people. Communism seeks for the bourgeoisie to be eliminated, so that the working class can control the state, which would also control the economy to prevent capitalists from gaining control, as well as welfare for the people.
Although they share some ideals and have the same origins, they have differences.

Anyway, Hitler didn't like most forms of socialism, or communism at all, because they promoted a globalist, cultural marxist view.

Hitler supported socialism in a nationalist way, he believed that the German people should help each other with welfare, but not those he saw as inferior, like the Slavs or Jews.

This is at odds with Communist and most Socialist perspectives, that the money should go to the poor regardless of their nationality or race, as they believed that class divided people more than ethnically or culture. That a poor Russian and a poor Kazakh were more similar to each other than a poor Russian was to a rich Russian. Of course, that ideology didn't always apply to actual Soviet policies, but Hitler didn't care about that.

File: TO WAR.jpg (271KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1600x1200px

>>46641
Conquest.

>>46641
The age of Post-post ironic shitposting.

>>46379
Moby Dick and 2001 (Kubrick's film) off the top of my head, are absolute masterworks

Our greatest philosophers were our Founding Fathers

File: 1446006390853.png (1MB, 989x1334px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 989x1334px

>>46641
The Early Dankness Stage on which are memes ascend to the stars and impress our will upon the fabric of reality itself

File: EverythingGoodEver.jpg (390KB, 4040x626px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 4040x626px

>>46641
The age of deceit.

>>46744
Huh, didn't mean to post that image but it kind of sorta works.

>>44314
immigration

>>45805
Only if we can ban the word Jew as well.

>>44314
Liberals

File: 1444090415357.jpg (22KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x480px

>>46641
giving up

>>46663
>Communism is Marxism
>"Cultural Marxism" before the Frankfurt School
drinking up the meme juice pretty heavily, eh?
but the second half of your post is generally accurate

>>45965
>There was a sense of Roman-ness but nobody was willing to die for it, or even to put their lives on the line. People just wanted to get through the day.

It's the complete opposite, actually. But nice revisionism.

File: hurr never been tried.png (50KB, 1352x706px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1352x706px

>>46786
Communism is based on every tenet of Marxist ideology, so yes. Marxism literally is communism.

>>46493
>I can find someone saying "nuke Mecca"
I can find several people who say this or who express agreement. More so other common sentements than this particular one ("the muslims ruin everything" is much more common for example), but still, I can find such without much issue.

>everyone on /pol/ literally wants this to happen
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. When did I claim this?

>If you want a forum where you're only allowed to hold opinions that are neutral or antagonistic towards the preservation of the White race, then perhaps reddit will be more to your liking.
Guy, if you want to put words in people mouths and for some reason assume that someone who want actual debates rather than "lol mudslimes" is an anti-white, I would say debates are not for you. You can have some view that, for instance, "Jews have negatively contributed to development", but if so, actually give a serious effort to explain why you think so. My issue with /pol/ is not that they have views I disagree with, it's that they don't actually debate, and if you hold a different view than whatever one is prevalent in the thread, you don't get serious counterarguments, you get shitposting. That you don't acknowledge that /pol/ is like that is a lack of sight on your part. It's not their views, it's their attitude that is insufferable. I am personally starting to believe they maybe you are one of them, and that maybe you actually think your shitposting might actually be "debating", which it is not. Again, I am not sure, but your constant misrepresentation of my words is leading me to think so.

>>46613

Then why did you reply to me?

Complacency of the victorious. Whether it's huge empires or individuals, when someone reaches the top they very quickly become complacent, they "won" after all. Then before they know it, the rug's been pulled out from under their feet.

>>46699
>>46624
yeah, now that you guys said those names...

shit, the USA really is in decadence isn't it?

Keeping 4chan around.

>>46641
The Shitposting Ages

/pol/, you have your own board to shitpost on. Why ruin this one?

>>44361

The problem is invading Russia in Summer, not Winter. Both the French invasion of Russia and Operation Barbarossa started in June. You got to do the oregon trail method and leave in March.

>>46568
>You just can't handle the banter.
(not him)
But that's just it. It often is just banter, not debating. I would like /his/ to be more debate/discuss than banter like /pol/

>>46833
>they don't actually debate
You've never been on /pol/.
>if you hold a different view than whatever one is prevalent in the thread, you don't get serious counterarguments, you get shitposting.
That's weird. I got links to evidence for why my view was wrong and I changed it accordingly.
>their attitude that is insufferable
Applying memes to real life phenomena is apparently troubling to you.
>you actually think your shitposting might actually be "debating"
You literally haven't given me a single thing to provide evidence for.

>>46816
Communism existed long before Marx. You have no idea what you're talking about. It's true that Marxism is a type of Communism, and the only one that anyone cares about these days, but this sort of wilful ignorance really is unexcusable.

>>46854
>shit, the USA really is in decadence isn't it?
Nah... we've got stuff like the Avengers 17: Captain Iron Man 4 vs Green Guy: pt2.

>>46904
Telling the truth only ever ruined the propagation of falsehood.

>>46833
You have to respect other posters and their views. Some people genuinely think that nuking Mecca would be a positive event. Why would they think that? What information do they have that you dont?

Memes and board culture get in the way of discussion on all boards, /pol/ is no different. The buffer is in place to prevent spoonfeeding and entertaining people who clearly want to make a spectacle on the board. Yes, there will be trolls and children, just like anyone else. It is your duty to keep a cool head and educate those with less and learn from those with more.

>>46937
Collectivist communities aren't exactly relevant to the wider history of the world because they were always too small to affect anything meaningfully after agriculture came about.
Back in the days of hunter-gatherers, sure. A form of communism was practiced because everyone could apply their skills and be provided for equally, but that's impossible on a wider scale as we've seen over and over again.

>>46926
>You've never been on /pol/.
(not him)
So /pol/ is a regular good board for debating stuff and you won't get automemed on if talking about a serious topic with a view that is against the prevalent one? Should I go on /pol/ literally right now and show you how many threads are doing that?

>>44314

socialism

>>47010
Have you bothered ASKING for evidence of a claim?

>>47010
If you can't take the memes why are you even on 4chan

not learning from history and repeating the same mistakes

>>47010
Yes. Engage the board in an unbiased way and genuinely try to foster discussion and education.

Don't just make a shit thread saying "there's nothing wrong with being jewish, prove me wrong" or "communism is the future of society you cant deny this". Lurk the board, learn the culture, and become someone who can engage them on their level, as an equal who wants to learn.

>>44314

Capitalism.

op keeps making stupid fucking threads

>>46998
Yes, I fully agree, I'm not arguing in favor of Communism in any way. It's just silly to conflate all of it with Marxist theory, which is a very specific ideological system.
Eh, guess I should stop being autistic now.

>>47038
sometimes things are self evident

>>44314
Multiculturalism (the more different, the bigger the mistake - race, religion, denomination, ethnicity, culture).

It has always led to problems.

>>46945
>blaming the absolute 100% of jews is the ultimate answer

yeah, you're definitely right /pol/

What people don't seem to realize is that /pol/ is just acting the way the rest of 4chan does with respect to the individual board interests.
The difference is, you're not going to get morally outraged at a Sonic the Hedgehog meme on /v/ or a GURPS meme on /tg/ or a K-ON meme on /a/ (unless you're autistic).
>>47135
It's alright, bro.

>all these /pol/acks using this thread to push their shit ideologies

If you genuinely think that letting people with political beliefs different to you is a bigger mistake than some of the most common recurring mistakes in history, many of which have resulted in millions of pointless deaths.

Then quite frankly, you are retarded.

>>47152
He didn't say that and few people on /pol/ genuinely think that. You literally can't handle the memes.

>>47116
This.

>>47183
People like memes.

>>46108
A weakening of religion means the weakening of the core values that form the morality and even legality of the society. It is when the ideals a religion endorses become disregarded as religion turns into a tool for gaining power and wealth. This is what happened with the catholic church and what sparked protestantism, a movement of revival of the original purpose of christianity in the face of growing corruption and sinning amongst the high priests.

Contrary to what you might intuitively think, religion is weakening in the US. And not because the percentage of atheists is on the rise, but because of the transformation religion has made. It went from a set of ideals and principles that guided a person in being a moral subject of a society into a huge money making tool in the form of megachurches and a propaganda tool for the politicians. So, although you may notice religious arguments become louder and more obnoxious than ever before, ultimately it is the symptom of the demise of the religion and not its rise.

>>46926
>You've never been on /pol/.
Serious debates that don't have autoshitposting in response to contrarian views to the majority are rare. /pol/ doesn't have a reputation for it for nothing.

>That's weird. I got links to evidence for why my view was wrong and I changed it accordingly.
I never claimed it doesn't ever happen that you get good debates. And also, you seem to be on the "mainstream /pol/" side of things, so you getting shit on would be rare compared to some guy for instance saying "Muslims aren't actually inferior and jews aren't that controling and in power"

>Applying memes to real life phenomena is apparently troubling to you.
Are you agreeing then that often the debates are not serious? since you are seemingly acknowledging at the very least that meme response are common? Or am I misrepresentation your position here? (notice that I actually make sure if I am or not, rather than go ad hominem)

>You literally haven't given me a single thing to provide evidence for.
I can go on /pol/ right now if you would like. It would be very easy to find many instances of the "toxic atmosphere" I was referring to.

I am serious though. You must know that /pol/ has such a reputation and that, at the very least, there is some truth to it.

>>45704
yeah but he won.

>>47233
Memes are the greatest recurring historical mistake.

>>44314
Expelling/killing economically important but unpopular minorities.

>>44314
Marriage.

>>47242
>I am serious though. You must know that /pol/ has such a reputation and that, at the very least, there is some truth to it.
So you agree that stereotypes are accurate. Good, you're well on your way to being a full-fledged /pol/ack.

>>47183
>shit ideologies
How objectivist of you. Are you sure you're not from /pol/?

>>46562
good post

>>46984
>Some people genuinely think that nuking Mecca would be a positive event. Why would they think that? What information do they have that you dont?
As I said before, that is fine. I would disagree with them, but I don't consider it "toxic" if they serious explain their point. For this specific example for instance, I can assure you that they very commonly just say the phrase and say no more.

>Memes and board culture get in the way of discussion on all boards, /pol/ is no different....It is your duty to keep a cool head and educate those with less and learn from those with more.
This is a true point. Although I think that /pol/ is among the boards where this gets (somewhat) excessive.

File: 1446252212063.jpg (20KB, 441x408px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 441x408px

>>44337
This

>>47242
If you are aware of the reputation and memes of the board, why don't you alter your posting style to suit the sensibilities of the board? That would be far more effective than expecting an entire board to fit your idea of a non-toxic atmosphere.

>>46941
All of these big 'We're this' or 'Xyz is good or bad' discussions are meritless. There is no real standard for anything so just sit back and enjoy... In many ways Iron Man and Hulk are masterpieces in their own right.

>>47347
>I can assure you
No, no you really can't. You're a gigantic hypocrite for condemning generalizations and yet making your own in the very same breath.

>>47240
I get what you mean. But what do you think would happen if some day people really did stop believing in gods?

I get that it's kind of unlikely and by the time it will take, another kind of religious thinking might surface as a "better truth" than atheism. But what if, you know?

>>47242
>It would be very easy to find many instances of the "toxic atmosphere" I was referring to.
It can't be worse than the Safe Space you're trying to create here on /his/.

>>47347
You will find people all over that only state their memes and don't back them up. Similarly, people don't like to spoonfeed others on what they consider common info. Clearly they're either ignorant or considered you not worth educating.

>>44363
>The Age of Pioneers
>Original settlers of Jamestown up until the American Revolution

>The Age of Conquests
>War of 1812, Louisiana Purchase, Mexican-American war

>The Age of Commerce
>The industrial boom in America

>The Age of Affluence
>WW1-WW2 and the rise of the US as a world power

>The Age of Intellect
>The Cold War, with the Space Race and other innovations

>The Age of Decadence
>Now

File: >Antisemitism.png (2MB, 1000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1000x3000px

>>44314
Thinking Jews will not be Jews.

>>47494
Given how he seems to look down his nose at any opinion that could possibly be a threat to his worldview, I doubt any /pol/ user would consider him worth their time.

I imagine him making an OP saying
>"You are all evil racist bigoted sexist homophobic Nazis! Prove me wrong, /pol/!"
Yes, clearly that warrants a serious answer.

the state

>>47631
Humans seem to create governments naturally ever since communities became too big to know everyone in it by name.

>>47433
It wouldn't change anything. Religion rarely stood in the way of progress.

You have to realize religion in itself is neither good nor bad. Nor is an ideology either good nor bad. All of it are the manifestations of how humans think collectively, and this has been taken advantage of by those who have the power to manipulate ideas and beliefs into serving their own interests.

If you think Islam is the reason why the Middle East is so shit you're gravely mistaken.

The world's so shit because that's literally what people are. The wars and genocides and whatnot are not the result of some misunderstandings or misconceptions. They are literally a natural part of what humans do. It lies deeper in our minds than any abstract political idea or preach given by a priest.

>>47530
Post-decadence Golden Age comes next.

>>44363
Considering that we are in an age of decadence, I feel like we will descend into another dark age in the near future after America falls, us and Europe for the last 20 years will be remembered as like the second Rome/Greece, hell, we even copied their architecture in D.C. like they did with each other.

With shitty socialist societies being the only other places of refuge, the progress of civilization will slow to a crawl and many Communist states and dictatorships will come about and nobody will bother to stop them because nobody has a military anymore. Russia will most likely rise as the next superpower but only because of their military and not their civilization's achievements, China might also be a second super power but it's unlikely they'll try to to conquer other places. Middle East will continue pointless infighting like they've been doing for 3000 years now and Japan, the only quality capitalist country left, will also collapse to decadence which is the cause of their birthrate problems, with no support from the U.S. economy, they will fall apart.

Also, without the U.S., the internet itself might be lost and no longer able to be accessed due to no one keeping control of the satellites and networks. It will be remembered as a great phenomenon of our period, a golden age of historical knowledge may emerge when the next great civilization finds the remnants of the internet and remakes it but it won't matter because it will also fall from the mistakes of the past and general ignorance.

America might end up as a multitude of smaller countries, or anarchic for a period of time. All North and South American countries will fall to shit and be taken over by mafias/drug cartels and the like without the support of the U.S., except for Canada, which will just deteriorate or turn to Communism like all the other Socialist countries.

I have no idea who might end up being the next truly great civilization.

>>46919
>It often is just banter, not debating
And it often is not. I've read some of the most insightful posts on 4chan on /pol/. I've also had some of the most fun I've ever had in /pol/ riot stream threads. Welcome to 4chan.

For someone who's going on about quality posts you sure seem to meta shitpost alot.

>>47296
What I said does not say that stereotypes are accurate. What it means that that it was not for nothing that the notion of /pol/ being "cancerous" or whatever you may have heard is the case. In this case, I feel that I can look through the archive or even todays /pol/ and show that very commonly a serious debate originating from a "contrarian view" is mangled.

>>47431
>No, no you really can't. You're a gigantic hypocrite for condemning generalizations and yet making your own in the very same breath.
What do you mean "No, no you really can't"? My claim was "I can assure you that they very commonly just say the phrase [nuke Mecca] and say no more." I can objectively support my claim simply by going through the archive and looking through the instances of "nuke Mecca" / 'bomb Mecca" / "nuke the kaaba" / etc

The problem with generalization is that usually they are not based in facts. This is not that. I can literal check the /pol/ archive to support my point. My statement is not baseless. Would you like to to go through the archive and show you, for the "nuke mecca" case, how often there is no serious explanation as to why that should happen?

>>47469
>It can't be worse than the Safe Space you're trying to create here on /his/.
>>47626
>Given how he seems to look down his nose at any opinion that could possibly be a threat to his worldview,
What exactly do you think my viewpoint is?

>>47626
>You are all evil racist bigoted sexist homophobic Nazis! Prove me wrong, /pol/!"
No, that is an example of shitposting. How you think I would consider that a serious debate topic is beyond me

File: 1439151718387.png (67KB, 400x506px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 400x506px

>>47747
I meant to say last 200 years for Europe and America, that was a typo.

>>44314
>Poland
and i know this firsthand

>>45436
Most of that is just banter, lad.
Don't be a pussy

>>44314
Thinking religion will die out in 100 years.

1. Government
2. Religion
3. OP

>>47776
>For someone who's going on about quality posts you sure seem to meta shitpost alot
Huh? "a lot"? I only posted that one post; your response of "And it often is not" does not indicate you think "It often is just banter, not debating" is an invalid point, and you say it's a lot of meta shitposts? How?

>>47780
You being able to cherrypick posts from a board that has thousands of individual users monthly isn't proof any more than one Black person killing a White person is evidence of all Blacks being murderous.
You don't seem to understand that you aren't using your logic- you're using pure emotion.

>>44314
Trusting Nomads

>>44475
I honest to god think we need a mayor catastrophe, "Mars wants our women" tier.
We need, as a culture, to learn that being a meany mean in facebook and sending all of the dislikes won't help. Activism is about signs and persistence, not about twitter.

>>44417
Literally SO MANY empires have invaded them and nothing happened because of it.

>>44314
Invading Russia?

>>47940
Because they invade their invaders. Trying to dissolve their culture is like punching a slime monster.

>>46663
Good explanation, thanks anon!

>>44314
Not learning from history.

>>44314
Genocide, segregation & general racism and other things of that same nature.

Human stupidity.
Will we ever learn?

>>47886
Okay, so just to make sure I am clear:

You disagree with the idea that there are any prevalent opinions on /pol/. Is that your viewpoint?

Furthermore, you disagree with that idea that /pol/ is in any notable degree more inclined to non-serious debates and/or "shitposting" than most other boards? Is this correct?

And in addition, you also are of the opinion that when there are any prevalent views, more often than not, when a post or thread is made positing a contrarian view, it is rare to find a non-debate emerge. Usually, there is a regular enviroment that allows for serious debate and usually you don't find instances in such threads of opinions being shit upon en masse. Is this a correct representation of your views?

Trying to invade Russia in the winter.

>>44724
Achaemenids
Alexander
Seleucids
Greco Bactrians
Indo Greeks
Kushans
Arabs
Mongols
Timurids
Mughals

They kind of stopped the British and all of a sudden they're fucking invincible

>>45436
kek desu baka senpai

>>46322
/pol/-tards do not even realize /pol/ is a hugbox extraordinaire and actually think 100 different posters writing monologues on the same theme is discussion. Come to think of it, /pol/ literally is Hitler as he behaved the same.

I'm right wing myself but fuck me if I can stand that shit board.

>>48053
>you disagree with that idea that /pol/ is in any notable degree more inclined to non-serious debates and/or "shitposting" than most other boards? Is this correct?
They are as shitposty as any other high-population board.
>when there are any prevalent views, more often than not, when a post or thread is made positing a contrarian view, it is rare to find a non-debate emerge
When you come seeking actual proof for some of the "prevalent" views on that board without insulting people and coming off like a complete faggot, you're very likely to get people who will give it to you in short order.
If you act antagonistic and dismissive, they will do the same. You can't expect to be given respect where you don't give it in turn.
Again, have you tried asking for evidence?

>>47780
I don't even know WHAT you're arguing against! You say that because users post meme answers and don't back them up, /pol/ is somehow devoid of value or intelligent discussion? How is that any different from /a/ bombarding newfags with boku no pico?

>>48137
You won't be banned for holding an opposing opinion. That means, by the strictest definition of the term, it is not a hugbox.

>>45805
I don't know. At the very least, I see a lot of heavily loaded questions on /pol/ where most posters don't bother to call the loading.

>>47780
You realize that when people say "nuke Mecca," they're not shitting up the latest Bernie shill thread, right? They're responding to yet another instance of Islam being compatible with Western civilization. Instead of going on writing entire paragraphs that nobody will read (for the umpteenth time), they'll show their support to poster they've replied to with a simple, concise message.

Context is important, and your purposefully ignoring it.

>>48248
*you're

>>45362
go to bed zizek

>>47864
>I only posted that one post
you and your ideological butt buddies wont stop whining about /pol/ and it's tiresome. /lit/ is leftypol anyways.

>"It often is just banter, not debating" is an invalid point
You're right because it's not an invalid point. There's a lot of shitposting on /pol/ but there's also insightful quality posts, and that's why I go there. Of course, if you're an easily butthurt libcucк I can see why that wouldn't appeal. I have no doubt /his/ is going to be exactly the same, so if you can't cut through the chaff you should just leave now.

>>44689
Are you advocating monarchy?

>>48363
Constitutional Monarchy isn't bad.

>>48051
Our level of information is doubling by every year. Even if we will always have our psychological shortcomings we are living in the most informed era ever and it will only keep growing.

>>46510
>pretentious /lit/ retards who found 4chan in 2012 think they own the website

Absolutely disgusting.

>>48424
Then why is the quality of education dropping, and why are concepts that should have been learned in middle school now being taught in college?

>>48448
Because in the west we don't teach discipline in schools anymore.

File: image.jpg (124KB, 580x573px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 580x573px

>>44337
This..

>>48137
I'm not sure what parts of /pol/ you're looking at, but whenever I drop in, people are usually at each others throats. The only threads that are almost completely single-minded are the ones about tumblr-esque cultural things like the new wave of feminism or controversy over the transgenders or new psychotic racial politics. When topics relating to women or trannies come up, it's basically unilateral, but in most other threads, a lot of what I see are vicious insults being hurled back and forth.

I think the reason a lot of people get frustrated with /pol/ is that the whole place is kind of a shock to your system the first time you go there. You see a lot of things like Holocaust denial, racial interpretations of history, worldviews that can go as far back as the Middle Ages, and plenty of other opinions that generally oppose a lot of what is accepted in the mainstream. What makes it seem hugbox-y is that these ideas get way more representation on /pol/ than any normal person is used to. When ideas that are fringe in the mainstream are accepted by a much larger percentage of people in another environment, you notice them more, and it gives the false impression that everyone on the board believes those fringe ideas. It looks like it's full of Nazis because there are way more Nazis there than anywhere else. It looks like it's full of conspiracy theories rivaled only by /x/ in insanity, but that's because there are way more conspiracy theorists on /pol/ than what the average person is used to. The idea that everyone on /pol/ believes the same thing or adheres to the same philosophy is, in my experience, not an accurate one, so characterizing it as a "hugbox" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I understand why it seems that way, but I don't think it really is one.

>>44314
populism

Egalitarianism.

Our civilization is facing a gradually intensifying disaster in the form of mass immigration from the third world, cultural disintegration by the mass media, social collapse by feminism and general decline of moral integrity. And while the outlook seemed bleak for quite some time, there is a clear current of resistance mounting world-wide.

In Europe, those who reject the modern paradigm typically take up the mantle of nationalism and socialism, inspired by the fascist movements of the 20th century. Golden dawn and Casapound come to mind.

But there is a uniquely American phenomenon and ideology which is perhaps the main current of thought in north American resistance movements, which is "libertarianism". For Americans, libertarianism is a logical extension of the conservative or republican mindset. It appeals to "traditional" American values like liberty, self reliance, small (or no) government, free enterprise, and so on, which explains in part its popularity with former conservatives.

However libertarianism is a false opposition. It's my contention that Marxism and libertarianism are two sides of the same liberal coin. Bear with me here, I'll explain.

The central underlying assumption of Marxism (and by extension, of all the SJW nonsense that is plaguing us today) is the notion that humans are fundamentally equal in their abilities (talent, potential, intelligence, etc). This is the logic behind the uplifting of third world primitives to our level, the abolishing of gender roles, and all the other ills of the modern experience.

>>48865
However, in the realm of moral quality, Marxists do not believe in equality at all. Old school communists would classify people as being bourgeois (evil, corrupt), workers (fundamentally good or neutral) and communists (saintly, selfless people). Today, we're all equal, but whites are evil and greedy, men are pigs and exploiters, while women and non-whites are various shades of innocent victims or blessings upon mankind. We're all aware of the SJW "hierarchy of victim-hood", where different people have higher or lower moral authority depending on their level of "oppression".

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on the notion that men are morally equal, which is to say that all men are selfish and self-interested. Thus giving any man power over others will lead to corruption, as he uses this power for selfish ends. But the ideology does recognize that there is a wide difference in abilities between men. From this dichotomy we get ideas like abolishing governments, or preventing state monopolies.

Marxism and Libertarianism, when presented this way, seem diametrically opposed; one believes in equality of ability but a moral hierarchy, while the other believes in moral equality but a hierarchy of ability. But both are still based on the liberal lie of equality - they just apply it differently. To the weak minded emotional thinker, it is easier to accept the victim mentality that comes with Marxism, while to the rugged individualist it's easier to accept the idea that everyone is selfish and that all authority is evil.

The problem, of course, is that there is no such thing as equality in this world. I don't need to press this point to this audience; we all know that some people are smart, some are stupid, some are strong, some are weak, and so on. But the concept that there is a moral hierarchy as well will seem blasphemous to many. It shouldn't be.

>>48876
Humans are social animals. Our individual survival depends on the group. No human can survive and prosper alone in the forest. For social animals like us (and others like ants and bees), survival of the fittest means first and foremost the survival and welfare of the group, not of the individual. And like other social animals, we have instincts for self-sacrifice in cases where the group benefits. However, those instincts are not as powerful in everyone. And whether those instincts kick in in a group depends primarily on genetic similarity, which is to say family and nation.

Thus reality DOES have a moral hierarchy, but a very different one from the one concocted by Marxist ideologues. Even if you adopt a cynical attitude, you can still distinguish that some people are more likely to help you if you're in need, while others are more likely to steal from you. Moral value (at least, from a social standpoint) is based around someone's solidarity on family and ethnic lines.

So what's the problem with libertarianism? The problem is that if you put two groups one against another, the one who is best able to work together will overcome the group of individualists. And the group governed by the best and brightest will overcome the group where the best and brightest do their own thing.

It follows that no one concerned with the survival and fitness of his group will benefit from promoting a libertarian attitude... at least, not within his own group.

The point that libertarianism is jewish in origin has already been discussed extensively before, and I won't rehash that here. Needless to say, ethnic minorities who occupy white countries (like the jews) do not adopt a libertarian ethic, quite the opposite. Ethnic favoritism is at the core of their success.

>>48901
Ultimately, the state is a tool. Whether it is good or bad depends on who is using it and for what purpose. The American government isn't evil because it's big and bloated. Imagine what this monstrously large institution could do in the hands of good men who care about the future of white people. Practically all of our ills could be cured in record time.

Individualism is a loser's strategy in life's game of survival of the fittest. Even for a cynical observer, it is indisputable that teamwork (and thus cooperation and empathy) are superior to individual effort: if might makes right, two men with sticks are mightier than one man alone.

The enemies of our people want us weak. With Marxism, they make us weak individually so that it matters not if we unite our forces. Through libertarianism, they insure that the strong among us stay isolated rather than uniting their powers and pose a threat.

>>48911
We must abandon foolish notions of "objectivity" if those lead to our destruction. "Freedom" is no different from "tolerance". We all understand now that tolerance is not a virtue, if the thing being tolerated is evil (bad for our people and against the natural order). Likewise, freedom to commit evil cannot be considered desirable. All that matters is freedom to do good. Today, we are not free to do good, because all laws are inverted by our enemies. Wishful thinkers long for freedom, thinking 'well, if we were totally free at least I could do the right thing'. This is a compromise. Instead, we should long for total victory, where the only freedom is freedom to do good (meaning, what is good for our people). Our enemies certainly don't cheer for the freedom to do what they don't like, and neither should we.

Libertarianism, even if it is designed to appeal to the strong minded conservative type, is still a product of liberal values like equality ('equality of opportunity' and 'don't thread on me'), liberty (freedom of speech for your enemies) and universalism ('judge the individual, rather than his race'). We can't get bogged down with this old ideological baggage. Liberalism must be purged from every crevice of our minds and souls before we are free and empowered to be truly just - which is to say, to dedicate ourselves fully to protecting our family, our nation and our race.

>>48175
>I don't even know WHAT you're arguing against!
I am arguing that, more so than other boards, /pol/ is not a good place to have a serious debate on a topic, at least for views that are contrary to the prevalent view, which, as per the meaning of /pol/, is often politically correct. I am not arguing for "politically correct" sentiments to be discouraged and posited in debate. I am arguing that if they are made, the poster of it should seriously make the arguments for it, rather than, what I perceive, is too common a practice on /pol/.

> You say that because users post meme answers and don't back them up, /pol/ is somehow devoid of value or intelligent discussion?
I never said "devoid". There are many cases where I can find a good debate. My issue is that, from what I can see (and what I beleive I could show with the archive as a general trend), is that good debates are rarer to find on /pol/ and that shitposting, memeing, and serious claims that are not accompanied by serious support.

>How is that any different from /a/ bombarding newfags with boku no pico?
It's not different, but I would say people are not usually "seriously" trying to make argument for something that they find as important and then get memed on or whatever. You can get stuff like "Snake is best girl (an unpopular opinion), here's why" and you usually can debate about it. Even if you get response like "snake a shit, monkey a best", you at least usually aren't really invested in debating such a topic, so getting a answer that doesn't actually give supports isn't so much of a issue there (since this is just anime, not real life). I would also argue that /a/ for the most part only has a sort of automatic response across all threads for the topic of requesting a source, where then everyone says "Don't spoonfeed him".

>>44417
Even when it was Buddhist?

>>46845
because I can

>>48175
>>48997
For the first part, I meant "make the arguments for it, rather than give no evidence or support with any serious investment, which, as I perceive,"

And for the last paragraph of my post, I just want to add a feeling I have that on /a/, if I seriously want to have a debate about something, I actually can get one (even if in the beginning my post gets autoresponded to) if I push for it, whereas I feel that with /pol/, once the autoresponses conmence, it is difficult to get a good discussion going even if I push for it. There are several cases where I've seen someone succeed in breaking this pattern, but from what I have seen, more often than not, they are unable, where other boards would actually go into debate mode if the poster earnest expresses a desire to do so, regardless of his posited opinion,

>>48997
>I am arguing that, more so than other boards, /pol/ is not a good place to have a serious debate on a topic, at least for views that are contrary to the prevalent view, which, as per the meaning of /pol/, is often politically correct.

You are correct to an extent. However, you have some misconceptions about what a good place for debate is. I would argue that there is NO good place for debate, at all, ever! For a place to be good for debate it would need a well educated userbase, aware and wary of its biases, that are willing to entertain topics they don't believe in, and are knowledgable about proper argumentation and fallacies. There is no such space on 4chan, let alone the world. I think if you were to find such a group, they would likely already be in agreement with one another, because they would all come to same rational conclusions.

>>44330
>beautiful

>>44337
liberals don't breed. they just spread their ideology through domination of the media and higher education.

>>49205
I have no real, objective way to convince you otherwise of your opinion. I know that /pol/ is a good place for debate and discussion because I, myself, have created several threads that were full of intelligent debate, despite being against /pol/'s interests. I managed to do that because I learned the culture of the board and it's posters and respected the responses I got. I know not everyone is capable of this, so yeah, /pol/ can be a very hostile, toxic place. I still contend that if /pol/ were not as offensive as it is, it wouldn't be home to the knowledge I see first hand there.

>>48248
>Instead of going on writing entire paragraphs that nobody will read (for the umpteenth time), they'll show their support to poster they've replied to with a simple, concise message.
Not that guy, but I think the issue might be that a person with opposite views does not take the assuptions you are making as proven and thus sees your claims as unsupported. So like in this case, you have claimed that Islam is not compatible with Western civilization, which is literally a /pol/ (politically incorrect) belief. The belief that Islam is incompatible may be dominant in /pol/, but a contrarian poster does not believe so. So if the contrarian was like "What would Muslims need to do to advance themselves?", you might get a response like "They can't until they renounce Islam, which is contrary to the progressive values of Western civilization". /Poster on pol/ might have a negative view of Islam as well, and thus they automatically agree with that point, but maybe the poster does not automatically believe so, and thus see such a statement as unsupported, since you did not give any evidence that explains what about Islam is incompatible. Or maybe he could take issue with the perceived notion the responder is making that Islam is monolithic or that it cannot evolve, which are also assumption the poster might not hold and thus sees as unsupported by the responder.

>>44314
Liberals being allowed to spread their idiotic ideas.

Hubris

Placing too much trust in citizens

Not trusting them enough

Selling 4chan to a leftist

>>44417
>Two biggest superpowers at the time fail utterly to even noticeably dent the regimes they came to disrupt

At least the Americans didn't completely fuck up and alienate ALL the citizens, though.

I think the devaluing of hierarchy is the most recurring civilization killer.

>>44361
to the top it goes sir :)

Upvoated

>>44314
"This time we can get get around all those irritating flaws of human nature!"

>>44363
/his/ I'm scared.
Can we break the cycle?

>>49699
It's inevitable, anon... unless you vote for Donald Trump.

Wealth inequality.

File: 5XDMsDu.jpg (54KB, 495x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 495x500px

>>44337
this desu

>>48865
>>48876
>>48901
>>48911
>>48921
beautiful

Democracy/eroding or deposing monarchies

>>47684
I fear you are right.

one possible way out is modern instant communication via the inetrnet in the hands of "everyman" can help them see the multifaceted nature of truth. however, it also can (and does) merely give humans a way to be shitty towards each other, and faster.

humans a shit. weather the storm as best you can, try to chip away at ignorance when you safely can, and hope for the best.

>>46379
>The scientific advancements of the past sixty years

???

>>44314
Thinking we're smarter than the humans of old

>>44314
Not learning from history.

At this point every scenario has basically been played out already. If more politicians were historians rather than lawyers the world would be a much better place.

File: people-say-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes-kurt-vonnegut.jpg (36KB, 403x261px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 403x261px

>>44314
Deities.

>>49792
I think we have more potential to adapt our viewpoints now rather than then I think. Not to mention of course more knowledge. We aren't significantly "smarter", but we are creeping up I think/would hope.

>>44361
Someone already said it, but...

/.thread

>>49723
Gee, anon, I don't think voting for that bumbling daughter-luster will help anyone.

>>49838
What about deities as a concept is a mistake?

>>49699
Yes. Nations won't rise and fall like they did in the past, countries won't collapse. It's just a change an endless change of rule. It's not like anybody is turning into something we don't already have or have experienced anymore. My point is civilization isn't going anywhere short of a nuclear war.

>>47747
underrated post

>>45844
delete this ;(

>>49727
Equality is a physical impossibility.

>>44665
He did in order to ignore Poland.

And then he realized "wait I fucking hate these guys", invaded and spilled his spaghetti at the last second, forcing himself to fight more fronts than he and his allies could handle.

>>44721
Hitler was in Stalingrad by Winter.

With Summer gear.

During the coldest recorded summer in Russian history.

>>47684
Holy fucking shit my intellectual brother where have you been all my life. Finally someone who gets it. I'm so sick of people blaming religions or ideologies instead of just realising its all a product of the humans situation. I try to explain how every single time humans go through strife and suffering extremist ideologists pop up but they never listen and insist its because the people are genetically inferior etc.

File: 1445292573904.png (197KB, 458x419px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 458x419px

>>46510

>>44314
Not believing in Jesus Christ.

>>49924
(not him) It's trying to get there that is important. Approximating it as close as possible should be a goal (once we decide what is the theoretically ideal level and distribution of wealth equality I mean)

>>49882
>as a concept
I didn't say "deities as a concept".
If people acknowledged they were constructs of the mind, then it wouldn't be a mistake.

>>50016
I believe in him senpai. I just don't believe he is divine.

File: YES!!!!.png (18KB, 411x454px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 411x454px

>>46562

>>50057
I'll rephrase. What about "deities" is a mistake?

>>44939
Way underrated post. This is the one, chaps.

>>50088
>If people acknowledged they were constructs of the mind, then it wouldn't be a mistake.
Hint:
>people acknowledged they were constructs of the mind

>>50021
The closer you get to equality, the farther away you get to freedom.

>>50021
How is that moral? Is it okay for any party to be forced to change in order to "progress"? Is it ethical that the people with more are forcibly weakened to benefit others?

>>50021
I don't see equality as a good. A stable and prosperous society comes about through hierarchy.

>>50059
So he was a liar?

>>50088
Accepting the metaphysics of the world as an antromorphed will stops people from thinking outside the box.

>>49699
No. This cycle is hard-coded into the human psyche and the only source of meaning. We are gears in this cycle. This cycle is our purpose.

File: capitalism2.jpg (927KB, 1807x933px) Image search: [Google]

927KB, 1807x933px

>>47583
Pretty much this

>>44582
one thousand years later being fucked up by Turks after at last three more Spenglerian cycles?

>>49988
I don't blame religion.

Religion should be a consequence of history, not a means to an end.

>>50245
Only by the notion that we can't rise above our nature.

>>50173
Hierarchy and equality don't necessarily conflict. It could be that hierarchies of responsibility, power, and privilege keep a society stable, and that all men are equal in a set of basic rights and opportunity to climb the hierarchy.

>>50342
>Hierarchy and equality don't necessarily conflict
Legal equality is fine, but don't be outraged when it doesn't automatically produce equal results.

>>47583
>Aquinas
>it were best that Jews would be made to work hard
But they were literally outlawed from doing so. In the areas where they weren't, Jews weren't really a problem (but still persecuted for refusing to assimilate).

File: 4724642742728.jpg (118KB, 833x696px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 833x696px

>>47583
>A jew cannot be a true patriot. He is something different, like a bad insect
Now that's just mean, willy

>>45152
/tg/

>>44314
Allowing the stupid to breed.

>>48921
This whole sales pitch for fascism seems deeply flawed. You mention the need for an abandonment of objectivity and then claim that there are objectively superior people with objectively superior values who ought to impose those objectively superior values on individuals holding objectively inferior ones. Libertarianism, which you seem to despise, is the closest thing humanly possible to the abolition of objectivity that you claim to seek, in that it firmly states that no individual or group is able to arbitrarily impose something onto another individual or group, no matter how "right" they think they are. We absolutely SHOULD cheer for the freedom to do what we don't like, because ultimately, what we do and don't like is not the business of anyone else. One can do whatever they please, as long as it does not impede on another person's desire to do whatever they please. The difference between "freedom" and "tolerance" is that "tolerance" is strictly non-active; you ought to tolerate what is going on around you, regardless of common sense or rationality (see Europe's current immigration crisis). "Freedom", on the other hand, states that you are perfectly within your rights to, say, shoot someone who is attempting to burn down your house. You do not have a right, however, to shoot someone who says something you didn't like, or kill your neighbors because they follow a different ideology than you. I trust I don't have to explain the difference.

Fascism, which is what you are advocating, is essentially no different from Marxist imposition in practice. Under the guise of what YOU believe to be "just", YOU are the only one free to impose YOUR opinion on everyone else, for no real, rational reason. That is tyranny. Your fantasy of a fully ideologically united family, nation, and race forbidding freedom to even speak of dissenting viewpoints sounds like an absolute nightmare.

>>50381
That's kinda what I mean, I didn't realize that the conversation had to do with active wealth redistribution rather than a basic set of rights and the govt. responsibility to minimize negative externalities.

>>44984
I don't even know why they made another "/q/ - Complaints about /pol/" board.

>>50332
Rising above our nature makes us something different. To be apart from the cycle would be to eliminate ambition and joy. We can spread across the universe, across separate realities external and internal, and become part of the very fabric of reality, but for as long as we can be said to be human this cycle will rule us.

>>50445
This kind of thinking eventually led to the current efforts to "equalize" social behaviors instead of just laws.

>>50109
That doesn't answer the question. You are saying that if people acknowledge they are made up, there would be no (biggest) mistake. You still have not stated how believing in them, even if they are imaginary, is the biggest mistake.

>Accepting the metaphysics of the world as an antromorphed will stops people from thinking outside the box.
What is about thinking the metaphysics of the world are affected by some sentient being inherently prevents creative thinking, as opposed to thinking that there is no such being?

>>50245
Humans aren't static. We can, and do change.

>>45436
I just want to point out /pol/ does not hate most jews. It's a minority of them pushing for social justice and running banks that we hate. Israelis post often without getting shit on.

>>50136
Pure freedom is not desirable. We want freedom, but we also want some limits for safety.

>>50141
I don't understand how you derived that from what I said. Can you explain what you perceive I am saying and how it relates to your post?

>>50173
>I don't see equality as a good.
I did not say pure equality. That is why I said "once we decide what is the theoretically ideal level and distribution of wealth equality I mean"

>>50198
I meant to tag you in >>50549

File: the future.jpg (79KB, 700x519px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 700x519px

>>50443
Yes, yes, I am advocating for Fascism. Total Fascism, with no hint of compromise or regret.

What makes us different than the Stalinists or the Islamsists is one thing - we're right.

Completely and totally right.

Why? Because everything in reality - including morality - is objective.

If the entire world world believed that rape was a good, it wouldn't change the fact that it isn't.

The order that Fascism seeks to re-impose is that of Nature, of the Cosmic Order - the expression of the values held in Classical Antiquity, from Plato to Marcus Aurelius.

You are not free to be a degenerate.

You are not free to murder.

You are not free to rape.

And you are not free to betray your race to the enemy.

The future is ours.

>>50186
Maybe. Or maybe words/actions were attributed to him that he never said/did.

>>50476
This. The lefty element on this site has gotten thoroughly out of hand since gaymercancer destroyed the site.

>>50664
>Because everything in reality - including morality - is objective.
(Not the other guy)
How do you know what the objective morals are, assuming they do exist? How do you demonstrate one moral is true as opposed to another one?

> Nature, of the Cosmic Order - the expression of the values held in Classical Antiquity, from Plato to Marcus Aurelius.
How do you know that is the correct set of values, assuming there even is a objectively correct set?

>>50443
Not him but fascism is different from marxism in that it promotes being better than others, while marxism looks down upon it.
Like marxism, there's a guy who one day decides he's going to decide everything, what differs is people's opinion on which one of the two is doing it in good faith

It's not tyranny if the people agree with what is being said

>>50538
It always does, but between the two tyrannies we have freedom, rather than just dealing with one long tyranny.
>>50586
Humans aren't static but humanity is.

>>50693
I don't think this board will last long.

This place is exactly like /pol/, only here, "/pol/" is the JIDF.

Someone says something you don't like? Accuse them of being from /pol/.

>>50534
That's okay. Mother Nature rewards those that goes against her.

>>50664
If the entire world believed that rape was good, including the rapist and his rape victim, then it wouldn't really be rape, would it? And why are you anyone to decide what it means to be a "degenerate"? Socrates believed that there are indeed such things as absolute virtue, absolute truth, absolute justice, etc., but he himself proved that specific definitions of these absolutes cannot be attained by humanity, and differences of these imperfect opinions would certainly not warrant oppression or murder. Libertarianism is a thousand times closer to a natural order, in that your obligation is to your own survival and arbitrary injuries or injustices towards your fellow man are met with organic consequence, just like kindnesses are met with organic rewards.

>>50911
May I ask where you have seen this? Is there a thread active right now that shows debate being stunted or whatever like you might see on /pol/?

>>50911
That's become the standard all over 4chan post-gaymercancer though.

>Say literally anything other than "OMG this bbc tastes so good in my mouth!"
>GET OUT /POL/!!!

>>50827
>It's not tyranny if the people agree with what is being said

If every person already agreed with what was being said, why would a tyrant even be necessary?

File: image.jpg (80KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 900x900px

>>50664
Then I break that golden future of yours out of spite because it's a very human thing to do.

>>51013
Because agreeing is far from doing it
I'm not saying every person, I'm saying most. For those who disagree it's still a tyranny, but that works for democracies too

>>50628
You said that equality is an important goal to be reached, despite it being physically impossible from other anon's view. You see equality as moral.

In order for equality to be reached, people must be changed. You could either change the lesser peoples or change the people with more. Either way, you force people to change in order to fit your conception of eqality.

Is it moral to force people to change? Is it moral to take from others to benefit those you feel need it?

>>50835
If humans aren't static, and humans create humanity, how is humanity static?

>>50970
>but he himself proved that specific definitions of these absolutes cannot be attained by humanity
He was wrong.

>And why are you anyone to decide what it means to be a "degenerate"?
Not him, but degenerate is an objective term. It means that which degenerates society. You can chart this. Proliferation of pornography, for example is degenerate. Capitalism is degenerate because it encourages the rich to socially engineer everyone else for their own short-sighted aims. Etc.

>>50988
Are you saying debate is stunted on /pol/ because someone says "JIDF"? God, you're exactly the sort of whiny bitch /pol/ doesn't need. If you can't hold your own on /pol/ it's because your opinion is weak, not because of a right-wing conspiracy. I swear to god, you crybabies are exactly as bad as you CLAIM /pol/ is. The only thing that stifles debate on /pol/ is the constant shit thread spamming (HURR IS X WHITE? HURR HOW CAN WHITE MEN COMPETE WITH THIS? HURR I HATE WOMEN AND I MADE A THREAD! HURR BATTLESTATION THREAD) and the plethora of literally paid shills on that board. /pol/ basically just became another shitty /b/ after gg.

>>51101
>For those who disagree it's still a tyranny, but that works for democracies too

And both tyrannies and democracies have exactly the same problem, admittedly to a different extent. Majority opinion does not equal objective virtue.

>>51036
That's exactly why humans are cancer and you're headed for extinction.

>>51137
Law of averages.

>>47240
>>47684

Man, I love this new board.

>>51138
>You can chart this.
What measures are you using in your definition of "degenerating" a society? Crime rates?

>Capitalism...encourages the rich to socially engineer everyone else for their own short-sighted aims.
I'm not sure where you live, but I live in America, the most famously capitalist country on the planet, and I can't say I've ever been "socially engineered". I have certainly been encouraged plenty of times to buy things I didn't need, but at no point was I forced to do so. Capitalism lives and dies based on the desires of the consumer, and as much as they scheme and advertise, ultimately it comes down to what the society wants. If the consumers allow themselves to be conned into an agreement that provides them with no real benefit, I find it difficult to believe that the con will continue for much longer. If they buy into the notion that the most important things in life are expensive clothes or flashy jewelry, and continue to receive no real benefit despite doing so, they have no one but themselves to blame when they can't afford rent that month.

>>51102
>You see equality as moral.
To be more specific, I think there there is a (or a set of) optimal distribuations of wealth that could exist and that we should seek to reach as best we can. To say that in another way, I think that first of all, there is a base level of wealth (and a corresponding level of standard of living) that we ideally should get everyone to reach, and once that is met, we can let the market do the rest (although I personally also think we shouldn't have people with 30 gojillion dollars all to themselves too, but that is a secondary opinion of mine).

>In order for equality to be reached, people must be changed. You could either change the lesser peoples or change the people with more. Either way, you force people to change in order to fit your conception of eqality.
I am speaking as an idealist here. As people are now, life won't get better much. I am hoping that over time people will become more sensitive to the issue of poverty and huge disparities in wealth and the economy will reallocate accordingly.

>Is it moral to force people to change? Is it moral to take from others to benefit those you feel need it?
In some case, I guess. To give an hypothetical example, is it so immoral to ask every person with more than 100000 million dollars to donate 1million or 100000 or even 10000 for assisting with poverty issues and such? Am I just imagining that really poor people need an additional dollar more than a multimillionaire? I'd say they actually do need it; it's not just a perceived need. Anyways, this is a more direct case, but I don't mean just this. I was just arguing that there is, I think, a ideal (or more ideal) state or wealth distribution, and that we are nowhere close to it. Doesn't have to be as direct as what I said.

>>51138
>Are you saying debate is stunted on /pol/ because someone says "JIDF"? God, you're exactly the sort of ... another shitty /b/ after gg.
Damn, you went off. I didn't mean what you are claiming, so calm it down.

>>51162
Nah, it just proves that fascism is made to be broken.

The only reason I know this thread isn't in /pol/ is because of the blue background

Why was this board created?