Howard Zinn? There are those stupid liberal lies again. The people's opinions do not matter. An examination of any society only requires an examination of the elite, both governing and non-governing, and our elites suffer from a severe case of bioleninism. Voting is a scam and part of the process of manufacturing consent.
Politicians are selected on the basis of their ability to win votes. The easiest way to win votes is to bribe the electorate, who are dumb and are mostly incapable of having an opinion. As they have a limited time in office, they must loot as much as they can as fast as they, and any resources left on the table will be used against them by their rivals. These structural pressures will select against anyone who shows fiscal restraint. Due to the political formula that a politician represents the will of the people, politicians actually dictate to the people what their will is with the support of the press. The politicians, in turn, have their own opinions dictated to them by the oligarchs who control the media and the money printers. Blackrock and the New York Times have a better claim to sovereignty than any elected politician.
You have the nature of power dynamics reversed across all levels. Purge yourself of the liberalism within.
Spez: here is a decent introductory flow chart of the underlying mechanisms through which power propagates.
Hahaha, I couldn't be further from a socialist, although people do often confuse me for a tankie and I rarely correct them as a way of hiding my power level. All labels are poor, but if I had to pick I'm a post-modern traditionalist looking for a Caesar worthy of serving.
I'm guessing you're a lolbertarian, aka a socialist handmaiden. The insistence of lolberts to reject the use of power is why the poz will continue it's march of deluezian territorialization. Heirarchy is intrinsic to man, and must be embraced for any civilization to flourish. You're doomed to live in the pod and eat the bugs.
I'm a fan of theocratic monarchism. The core dispute I have with socialism, the bastard off-spring of liberalism, is that man is not perfectable by the proper application of materialist theory. From there, all else follows.
Rousseau is fundamentally wrong about the natural state of man being his best and civilization being the root of evil. Destroying heirarchy and institutions of authority is the opposite of freedom. It is a vicious atomizing enslavement, which is a good demonstration that capitalism is not the opposite of socialism since they share the same hedonistic materialist conclusion.
Also, Austrian economics is 100% correct, but it must be remembered that it is value-free and non-presciptive. Many people forget that Ricardo's explication of free trade assumes that capital and people are statically contained within the nation, which is why there is no reason Mises cannot be synthesized with List.
What is your dispute with socialism and how do you propose to stop it?
Howard Zinn? There are those stupid liberal lies again. The people's opinions do not matter. An examination of any society only requires an examination of the elite, both governing and non-governing, and our elites suffer from a severe case of bioleninism. Voting is a scam and part of the process of manufacturing consent.
Politicians are selected on the basis of their ability to win votes. The easiest way to win votes is to bribe the electorate, who are dumb and are mostly incapable of having an opinion. As they have a limited time in office, they must loot as much as they can as fast as they, and any resources left on the table will be used against them by their rivals. These structural pressures will select against anyone who shows fiscal restraint. Due to the political formula that a politician represents the will of the people, politicians actually dictate to the people what their will is with the support of the press. The politicians, in turn, have their own opinions dictated to them by the oligarchs who control the media and the money printers. Blackrock and the New York Times have a better claim to sovereignty than any elected politician.
You have the nature of power dynamics reversed across all levels. Purge yourself of the liberalism within.
Spez: here is a decent introductory flow chart of the underlying mechanisms through which power propagates.
Just eat shit socialist ! Eat IT !
Hahaha, I couldn't be further from a socialist, although people do often confuse me for a tankie and I rarely correct them as a way of hiding my power level. All labels are poor, but if I had to pick I'm a post-modern traditionalist looking for a Caesar worthy of serving.
I'm guessing you're a lolbertarian, aka a socialist handmaiden. The insistence of lolberts to reject the use of power is why the poz will continue it's march of deluezian territorialization. Heirarchy is intrinsic to man, and must be embraced for any civilization to flourish. You're doomed to live in the pod and eat the bugs.
Quite curios HOW THE FUCK COULD YOU EVEN SAY THAT ! =)) What exactly makes you NOT SOCIALIST ?
I'm a fan of theocratic monarchism. The core dispute I have with socialism, the bastard off-spring of liberalism, is that man is not perfectable by the proper application of materialist theory. From there, all else follows.
Rousseau is fundamentally wrong about the natural state of man being his best and civilization being the root of evil. Destroying heirarchy and institutions of authority is the opposite of freedom. It is a vicious atomizing enslavement, which is a good demonstration that capitalism is not the opposite of socialism since they share the same hedonistic materialist conclusion.
Also, Austrian economics is 100% correct, but it must be remembered that it is value-free and non-presciptive. Many people forget that Ricardo's explication of free trade assumes that capital and people are statically contained within the nation, which is why there is no reason Mises cannot be synthesized with List.
What is your dispute with socialism and how do you propose to stop it?