How does this quote make you feel,if any reaction at all?

It lets me know that Ayy Rand is a materialistic capitalist

>>34327091
this belongs on /pol/

dont get me wrong anon im as redpilled as the next guy, but lets be honest, shes making up reasons to justify what she already would have believed regardless of the logic presented

I continue to believe that I should never take women seriously.

if we don't respect the earth we will regret it

File: 1481953795689.jpg (97KB, 350x510px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 350x510px

>>34327128
>how to spot a non-white on /r9k/

E Z P Z

>le natives had no concept of property meme

The native tribes fought wars and conquered each other too. They fought the Europeans to defend their land because they wanted to keep it.

>>34327191
>all whites are materialistic capitalists exclusively

Great! That way it's easier to know who to steer clear from

>>34327091
if natives had their way and white culture didnt destroy everything it touched america wouldnt be in this sorry state of cheeseburgers and niggers

I'm no SJW but ayn rand is a just a big ol' cunt. Her writing sucks too.

>>34327091
ayn rand died in 1982 before the shit really hit the fan. if she saw america in its current state she would probably have a lot to say about it and nothing good

native americans truly were savages. constantly at war with each other. go read up on the apaches, they were worse than niggers

>>34327300
Ayn Rand BTFO

>>34327091
and Natives had the right to defend it. what's the point? there is no fucking point, there is nothing wrong with living like an animal, humans are animal. never trust kikes r9k

>>34327160
no kike belong on /pol/, you can have her

>>34327490
But /pol/ loves kikes now that Trump is president

>>34327395
>natives were savages because they were constantly at war
>whites are master race because they were constantly at war with each other

Really toots the ol' noggin

>>34327534
Not true, we just come up with excuses for why he associates himself with kikes.

>>34327091
Makes me think that Rand was a fucking moron.

I'm apathetic to everyone and everything right now, but logically her argument makes no sense. They had the right to defend living like animals as much as you had the right to come over and take it from them like the Euro shits you are.

>>34327091
Pretty correct, no one has an ultimate "right" to anything

>>34327300
Natives are in a worse state than they are right now. At least majority of them won't in poverty like they

What a bunch of PC faggots. It doesnt matter who did the deed,righteous conquest is conquest. No matter what way you look at it,america would not be as civilized and amazing as it is today. Sure america has had a string of bad luck the last 50 years but we can and will get out of it. Things will change.

>>34327621
nigger have you seen the suicide rates in some of the reservations? the rape statistics on native girls? they're supposed to be grateful right? thanks white man

>>34327773
>Sure america has had a string of bad luck the last 50 years but we can and will get out of it. Things will change.

>country has existed 240 years and it's already fucked

>nothing but bloodshed since it was founded
>civilized
>muh right of conquest!

>>34327773
>righteous conquest is conquest
i guess it's okay to let the muslims invade every western country like they are citing "right of conquest"

>>34327916

It's not a matter of right or wrong, it just is. If whites don't defend their boarders, then they lose their countries. Simple as that. Might makes right, and right now Western civilization is waning and weakening. We're getting closer to the point of no return.

>>34327843
1.)outside forces and corruption has tainted america. If people had minded their own business we wouldn't be in this mess.

2.)Nothing but bloodshed? Name one country thats foundation isn't mixed with blood.give me one. Just one.

3.)name a country that is as civilized as us

4.)everyone has a right to conquest. I bet you wouldn't bitch about it if it was china that did it.

>>34328008
it all comes full circle. whites had their day and now it's all falling apart around them and its almost entirely their fault

>>34327843
>implying America is any different to most of the world in being morally bankrupt

>>34328008
>implying there is really anyone strong enough and willing enough to destroy the Western world as we know it

Kek, did I wonder into /x/?

>>34328044

All civilizations and races rise and fall and the decline is always marked by people becoming more and more liberal and peaceful. The rise is always marked by conservatism.

Every historically great civilization has gone through the same process of rise and decline.

>>34328100

Not militarily. But what if the enemy is from within and is coming from outside and made part of the group? It happens every time.

>>34328018

1.)outside forces and corruption has tainted america. If people had minded their own business we wouldn't be in this mess.
if white people had never come to america we wouldnt be in this mess


2.)Nothing but bloodshed? Name one country thats foundation isn't mixed with blood.give me one. Just one.
look at canada and how many countries have waged war with canada

3.)name a country that is as civilized as us
canada, moreso

4.)everyone has a right to conquest. I bet you wouldn't bitch about it if it was china that did it.
it's 2017, time to maybe consider stopping all the senseless killing instead of using "oh well other countries did it" as an excuse

>>34327191
Real white people hate capitalism too; capitalism benefits from having the stupidest possible populace.

Having the stupidest possible populace is enhanced by racemixing and pretending that the races are equal.

Rand wasn't white, and she wasn't even American.

>>34328130
>happens every time

Are you implying that the Huns were Roman?
Also, you do understand that a parasite community within a society would be ill served destroying their host, right?

>>34327091
>if someone has something I want it's not true property

>>34327585
No, they don't have the rights because they don't have a concept of rights at all. So they difn't have the right to defend living like animals, but rather they were just capable of doing it

>>34328189

The collapse happens from within and then they get smashed by an enemy. It always happens. They toss aside what made them great, they change their culture and way of life and value things that is radically different then what brought them to power, and then they wither, they split, and then they fall.

>>34327091
>they had no right to the property because they were not using it the way I think is best!
stupid Ayn

if you really want to defend our taking of NA land you just say
>we declared war on them and we won, land's ours now fair and square. Shit we even bought it from them sometimes
and that's good enough

File: 1484004654137.jpg (30KB, 456x402px)

30KB, 456x402px

>>34328243
Didn't immigration make america great?

The Native Americans were much more advanced agriculturally than the whites before the whites came to the Americas.

>>34328285

I don't know, did it? You tell me.

And then also deal with the fact that America was more than 80% white 70 years ago.

>>34327091
It makes me think how utterly worthless Rand's prose is.

>>34327300
It wasn't white culture that destroyed the natives. It was the diseases whites brought with them.

>>34328243
>societies evolve to adapt to new technologies, and geopolitical developments
>they get BTFO by a more succesful society

>"hurr durr, inside job, corruption of the society, etc"

Or the invaders could have just been, better, you know?
Are you really going to tell me that when the Spanish invaded South America it was because the locals had stopped sharpening their sticks as often?
Or when the Huns smashed Rome it was because their marble wasn't cut from the old quarries?
Or that the Spartans held off the Persians because the Persians were a bunch of gays? :^)

Societies are different, they have strengths and weaknesses, sometimes their weaknesses are exploited by other societies. These strengths and weaknesses also evolve and adapt over time.
To say that societies should refuse to change because it might create new weaknesses is idiotic.

For real though, what is it you are scared of? Goatfuckers, faggots, women, blacks, whites, asians? All of these groups have both succesfully defended and destroyed societies, hard to say what they will do to the West.

Also, as I said before
>smashed by an enemy
That enemy does not currently exist except in the minds of paranoid schizophrenics and those who try to exploit them.

>>34328315
>And then also deal with the fact that America was more than 80% white 70 years ago.
So? Asians and Indians are more intelligent than whites, shouldn't the goal of American be to convert as many Asians and Indians to loyal citizens?

>>34328401

Every example you posted, they made stupid mistakes and we're foiled from within. History and war is more than just the battle, there's continuity.

>>34328502
>South America natives foiled from within

Wut?

I agree with her. Might makes right. This has always been true.

>>34329013

PRO-tip: they weren't all one peoples. Look up the history my friend there's a whole world to read about.

>>34327091
If those are her words, it implies that your neighbor has the right to take your property, because they disapprove of the way in which you live, and of how you use that property.

I may let my good-for-nothing friend crash on my couch, but that doesn't mean my neighbor can take it from me, at gun point, because he believes he can put it to better use, sitting on it while he balances his checkbook.

Now, are these the words of Arn Rand? Is this what libertarians support?

>>34328171
>stupidest possible populace
>not communism

>>34329046
>one-curb stomp of savages is different to another in this conversation

Okay, the Inca. Tell me how it is, in your opinion, that the Spanish conquest of their society was aided by some sort of cultural degradation through internal efforts within the Incan populace.

After that, please show me the dissidents within Papua New Genuian tribes who obviously paved the way for colonial conquest.
And again in any Ugandan tribe you like.

I must be extremely confused, because to me these victories seem more like the result of vastly different military capacities than any sort of subversive infiltration/corruption.

The powerful take things from the weak. There's really nothing else to say. Rand didn't mean to be cruel. She simply meant to explain that ability and right are one and the same, and that we can either accept that truth nor impotently whinge about it. She also saw the state of civilisation as an improvement upon the state of nature, which I wholeheartedly agree to be the case.

>>34329177

If you think at best ~200 people were able to conquer a civilization of more than a few million people because of their equipment, you're dumb as fuck.

Are you racist? Do you think whites were born with superior genes? Do you think guns make that much of a difference when facing overwhelming numbers?

>>34327091
My first thought is, "Mother wouldn't approve."

>>34329114
Oh, and her alleged analysis of pre-colonial life was full of fallacies.

Because they didn't strip-mine the land bear, to fulfill the needs of machinery they didn't use, they have no right to the lands of their people and forefathers? Does her ideology also ban inheritance? Does it set up a central, infallible, incorruptible governing body, which determines who will put the land to the maximum usefulness, to the most people.

This idea is beginning to sound like the worst parts of communism and fascism combined into one beast.

Rand is right, whites coming to the New World is the reason why the world is as it is today. God knows where we would be without the United States; it has been, arguably, the most influential nation in the history of the world, behind maybe only the Roman empire.
The natives were not doing anything with the land. Whites came and brought civilization to them. Look at what they had done in thousands of years, look at what whites created in a few centuries.

The might is what makes it right, too. If you cannot defend what you have, then you WILL have it taken from you. I do not go and murder somebody because I know the police will exert superior force and stop me.
The natives lost, fair and square. Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1y_0NfhF9c

>>34329206
>new military technology (guns)
>strike fear and awe into the local populace
>revered as gods due to this

Please point out where they infiltrated the Incan culture prior to their invasion.

>>34329290
To add, the law of violence supersedes all other rights. Rights for homosexuals/women/minorities are all guaranteed by how powerful the state is, how much force it can exert to keep such "rights" in place. There can be no such thing as "human rights" without the existence of this law of violence. If you cannot defend your "rights", you do not deserve them and will have them taken from you. A "human right" is only determined by how much violence the governing body is willing to display. Outside of this, it does not exist. It is implemented for comfort of life/high standards of living, but it is not guaranteed/"created" by some incorporeal force which dictates that we "deserve" it.
Natives lost because they could not defend what they have. Modern nations exist only because they defend themselves/are defended by powerful nations. If they are left for the dogs and lack any defense, they will be annihilated by the powerful.

Defense of the natives is the defense of the inferior, defense against the rational right of the mighty. The gazelle does not curse the cheetah for killing it; it ought to curse its own legs for not being fast enough.

Didn't Rand believe in the NAP? Doesn't Colonialism violate the NAP?

>>34328163

>white people coming to america

You mean like the portugese, spanish, and half of europe?

>look at canada

Blood on their hands too chief. Canada also had native populations, and where are they now?

>canada, moreso

And how would you define that?

>2017 meme
>oh well other countries did it as an excuse

They do it, did it, and will continue to do it, we still have tribal mentality, and it's not going away anytime soon until everyone lives the same way, and even then they'd find reasons to do it, conflict IS in our nature, deal with it.

>>34329330
>Please point out where they infiltrated the Incan culture prior to their invasion.

I said enemies from within. That means traitors and saboteurs as well as hostile unassimilated immigrants.

>>34328441

If they're so intelligent and better than us why haven't they surpassed us? They have the numbers, they have the know-how, but no, the average indian is not a smart person, everyone, on average, is a dumb motherfucker including you and me and everyone you know with maybe one guy slightly above the rest out of every ten thousand.

>>34329393
>and where are they now?
Stealing stuff out of my shed and panhandling

>>34327091
It's all retarded.
Anyways you can't apply our cons pectin of rights onto 1600s people's consecution of rights.
Anyways the U.S. Indian removal programs in the east and the geocides where governors encouraged white settlers to go around shooting up Indian villages in the west were clearly wrong. But very little you can do about it now. Inherited guilt is retarded.

File: IMG_0175.jpg (21KB, 640x321px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 640x321px

>>34329114
>Is this what libertarians support?
Yes. They also support post-birth "abortion" (aka murder) and disobeying laws that keep people safe

>>34329426
Outline the enemies from within that existed in the Incan empire.

and again with the eventual British defeat of the Zulus.
Honestly bud, you are still going to back the notion that EVERY defeat of a civilisation at the hands of another was caused by your "enemies from within" and never through sheer stupidity, bad luck, lack of technology, or straight up military inadiquacy?

>>34329540

I literally already did. The Incans were not a unified people. There were traitors in their midst that worked to destroy the society. They allied with the Spanish and the rest is history.

>>34329566
Which traitors?

You mean the "traitors" which were simply stupid enough to believe that the Spanish were gods?
Your wording and general tone have implied a motive, or at least a general concept of concent or collaboration, in which the people who brought about the fall of these civilisations were somehow doing something they knew was wrong.

Also, I'm still waiting on how your quack ideology is relevant to the West?

File: 1484478451795.png (334KB, 430x579px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 430x579px

>>34329453
>99.99% are dumb motherfuckers

>>34329614
>You mean the "traitors" which were simply stupid enough to believe that the Spanish were gods?

No, I mean natives that were long since incorporated/conquered into the Incan empire that were not loyal to it and did things to weaken it and aid the Spanish.

What, you thought the Incans were all one people?

Also, it's relevant to the West because of globalism. Enemies from within opening the gates and aiding the enemy, people that actively want the West to die.

>>34329658
>Enemies from within opening the gates and aiding the enemy, people that actively want the West to die.
Would this include homosexuals?

>>34329724
>Would this include homosexuals?

It includes everyone I don't like, of course.

But seriously, don't hand wave the argument with a red herring.

>>34329658
Wait, so you have proof right? Of these Incan dissidents who actively wanted the whole empire to be destroyed? Who took intentional actions with that goal in mind?
You have proof as well that these actions by these otherwise unknown and unimportant groups of people had enough of an impact to meaningfully alter the outcome of the Spanish invasion?

>spies are going to destroy the Western world
Wew, hot off the presses.
Do you have names? numbers?
Even a vague idea as to who this information would be useful to?

You do understand the Western world is made of many different people's right? and that you are implying ever facet of it is under siege by unknown secret assailants who are handing out secrets or otherwise destabalising every country in the group, in order to aid an unknown enemy in their upcoming conquest?

Who is this enemy anon?
Who could have half a hope of winning a war against the Western world? even a "weakened" one?

>>34329191
>she didn't mean to be cruel
Yeah, she was a cunt. It came naturally.

>>34329206
>Do you think guns make that much of a difference...
Of course he doesn't. There's more at work than mere guns. Europe had a civilisation that was more sophisticated by a millennium. They had a feudal economy that could produce a grain surplus, they had shipyards that could build fleets, they had works that could produce shot and iron pieces of artillery, and they had military intellectuals and veterans with experience of bloodier wars than a savage society is economically capable of waging. So, yes. Once they established a successful colony, European control of some part of the mainland was inevitable. The fact that they encountered a divided society with existing enemies certainly made things easier, as did the spread of disease.

As far as numbers are concerned, force projection is important. The commons in prenational societies are not loyal, and will submit to any rule that promises to be less horrible to them than that of their existing oppressors. The Aztec and Incan empires were empires in the truest and most vicious senses, and they did almost nothing for the commons. There was more or less no concept of citizenship or personal rights. The ruling classes wielded absolute, naked, and brutal power. The commons were preyed upon without anything resembling the privileges and guarantees afforded to European serfs. The military class was distinct, and reproduced itself organically rather than industrially. Exterminating this small class effectively eliminated the ability of the existing society to wage mount an organized resistance. European military leaders were of course able to effectively organize previously minor adversaries into serious belligerents, hence they did not even need to wait for the establishment of a successful colony. They were essentially able to incorporate the entire surviving population and infrastructure into New Spain, as is evidenced my the halfbloodedness of much of the population today.

>>34329746
>Wait, so you have proof right? Of these Incan dissidents who actively wanted the whole empire to be destroyed? Who took intentional actions with that goal in mind?

Why, yes I do my little baby newfag!

Here, you can start your studies here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Inca_Empire

APOLOGIZE

>>34329834
>70 odd remains are found of people who attempted to fight for freedom

Oh wew, I am sure they did this to destroy the empire, and I am sure it was the REAL reason a century spanning civilisation came to an end.

Again, at any time you can admit that human stupidity/naivety has in one way or another ended every civilisation and will end the West as we know it, but I don't believe every single demise has been caused by intentional corruption through internal forces. You are believing too much in some big plan, much like other globalist conspirators, sometimes (all the time) the masses are just plain stupid, and their leaders too.

Seldom will you find an instance where a civilisation was taken down through no fault of their own, where an enemy who attacked without reason and with overwhelming force breaks them through the use of carefully planted traitors.

>>34329968

Wew, this backtracking is hilarious. Admit you were wrong and APOLOGIZE

You have no clue what your are talking about. Stop trying to debate me. You can't, you are not my equal. Not even close.

>>34327091
She's right, you can't claim to own dirt and trees. It's different when you claim to own land when you actually build stuff on it, because what you built is a result of your labor. Injuns were nomads and savages that attacked us because we had nice things.

If we left them to themselves they would have advanced to the level of Aztecs and Mayans and would have been doing sick blood sacrifices of children for spectacle. Mexicans still do gross shit like that, look at what the cartels do to people. Savagery is in their blood. Conquering them was conquering a form of evil.

>>34330001
>"every civilisation is destroyed through internal traitors"
>"EVERY SINGLE ONE"
>Incans?
>"Yep"
>You sure you mean traitors and not just people being people? You are implying a motive of destroying a civilisation
>"Wikipedia"
>I just see a bunch of people trying to be free, I don't see anyone hell bent on the destruction of the civilisation, are you super sure you don't mean stupid?
>"Lmfao I win hurr durr"

?
I mean, I am talking to an /x/-tier paranoid anon, but still. I hoped for more than this.

>>34330129
>You sure you mean traitors and not just people being people

Lol

You were literally and undeniably proven wrong.

>>34330126
I can't tell if you're bring edgy or if you had an abusive dad. Hint?

>>34330129
>>34330147
You two kiss and make up

>>34328171
>communism benefits from having the stupidest possible populace.
fixed that for you

>>34330147
Would you mind pointing out to me where this happened? As I get the feeling I am now just being trolled.

>>34330176
Then he would have to blame himself for the apparent upcoming destruction of the West.