Do the individual's needs come before society's, or

>>129467395
And what are society's needs, if not the individual's?

>>129467395

Wrong. The society's needs IS the individual's needs.

When Jews say "society comes before individuals" they really mean "let's kill goyim and redistribute their money to Jews while claiming we're helping society"

My needs come first. Society and other individuals can fight for 2nd and 3rd place.

>>129467395
What a stupid looking axe, handle is way too thick

>>129467395
My needs come before anyone else's in from my point of view.

>>129467395
Nation as long as they are sound needs.

>>129467585
> When Jews say "society comes before individuals"
It's kind of funny you mention that since Jews are almost always the ones pushing the inverse and Hitler always talked about how society's needs came before the individual's.

>>129468193
>what is communism

>>129467779
Read up on the symbolism of the fasces before you open your mouth.

>>129468345
Are you ironically replying to his ironic post?

File: 1481080088757.jpg (4KB, 145x144px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 145x144px

>>129468345

>>129468248
> What is libertarianism
> What is neoliberalism
> What is the current dominant political paradigm
> Most Jews at this point are somehow communists and not normie liberal individualists

>>129468531
Mr Spock also talked about how the needs of the many come before the needs of the few. Guess what race he was

>>129467395
No.

God comes before everything. Next is family. Then country.

File: 1496287009452.jpg (1019KB, 1500x984px) Image search: [Google]

1019KB, 1500x984px

>>129467472
>>129467585
In the words of the immortal J.Peterson: Its incomplete!

What you bunch of retards cant seem to grasp is that its BOTH. Both are important, the individual, for without the individual there is no society, and society, for without a stable and strong society the individual can't live happily, or indeed safely.

Problem is, those two drives are more often than not opposing one another. But that in itself is no tragedy, as greater order almost always arises not from total compliance and cooperation, but from competition and adversity.

What we need to do is figure out a way of life in which the individual striving for ever increasing independence, power and agency does not lead to societal breakdown. Preferably even advances the greater good, if not in all cases than at least in most.

What the Jewish agenda is, in fact, is not promoting societal well-being over the individual, or vice versa, but simply ensuring the two are constantly at odds in the most unproductive, destructive manner possible. Preventing synthesis from which a greater whole can be made from competing, adversarial forces, and promoting dissolution and mutual destruction instead.

Hitler had the right general idea. Strength through happiness, happiness through achievement in our basic, evolutionarily dictated roles as warriors, providers, mothers and fathers, most of which falls naturally within the boundaries of what could be defined as the "greater good".

I don't think its the whole answer, but its a start, and we need to figure this shit out from there.

>>129469466
10/10 post

File: 1491423984222.png (753KB, 1024x716px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 1024x716px

>>129469466
Honestly. For as much despite their is for the Nazis, one thing I really admire about them was they pressed individuals into roles like civil construction or military service. A directed individual that contributes to the well being of society fills that individuals life with purpose and that in turn meets their needs. It can be a mutually beneficially relationship.

>>129469466
good post anon

File: paytheirwayistheonlyway.png (232KB, 629x500px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 629x500px

>>129467395
If you don't protect the individual, you'll have no society.

File: 1496469486718.png (53KB, 500x406px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x406px

>>129470228
Precisely, and a huge part of the <<<post-modernist>>> agenda was to make people forget that simple fact, to make everyone believe that personal happiness and achievement must be won FROM society. That being a rebel is the only way to be "cool", but only if there are no legitimate reasons to rebel, because if you even so much as care about shit that actually MATTERS, you're a tryhard fedora-wearing cis white virgin whatever the fuck is the insult of the day. Fuckboy, maybe?

That needs to change, and its we who need to turn it around. Oh sure, we can't do it as individuals. But there's more and more of us thinking this way, as evidenced by the popularity of figures like Peterson, Lauren Southern, Golden One, and so on. Regardless what you think about them personally, their messages all have a similar, overriding theme. A rejection of post modernist divide and conquer bullshit, and I think all of us can get behind that.

>>129470611
Utterly ridiculous picture there famalam, your rights are always someone else's responsibility. To provide someone "free" housing, "free" food, "free" whatever the fuck, someone else needs to work and pay for it. If you provide those things indiscriminately, it means productive people have no choice to refuse. In other words, slavery.

QED, fuck off and die with your commie bullshit.

File: 18486019_126583744571619_2477168005597339939_n.jpg (33KB, 540x357px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 540x357px

>>129467395
Society IS the individuals needs.

>>129469466
>What we need to do is figure out a way of life in which the individual striving for ever increasing independence, power and agency does not lead to societal breakdown. Preferably even advances the greater good, if not in all cases than at least in most.
Distributism.

>>129471558
Look into the Humanity Party's platform before you pigeon hole it. The only tax under their system is a sales tax, not exceeding 20%.

the point of society is to direct the individual to the point where the individual is fulfilled. Once the individual is, they can contribute to society and enrich society to continue to enrich the other individuals in society.

>>129467395

Both interplay. If individuals needs aren't met, society collapses.

File: Captura de Tela 2017-06-08 às 03.47.29.png (334KB, 756x706px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 756x706px

>>129468976

>>129467395
Individualism is for fags

File: Senior-Spock.jpg (26KB, 671x359px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 671x359px

>>129467395
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

No society can survive if it is unwilling to sacrifice a few or one for the greater good. The military is familiar with this concept (acceptable and predictable losses to complete the mission).

That said, if a society is going to care about individual rights/needs at all, it should only be those of the individual's who are actually productive and contribute to the well-being and advancement of society. People who are nothing but a drain on society (ex. almost everyone on welfare) should be cut loose. It's kind of like the story of the chicken that bakes the bread....if you don't help at all, then fuck you, you don't get any bread.