Juden Peterstein is mad at the comments section here.
Comments are too based for him.
I googled Abraham Lincoln's memoirs and he said "the internet is always right as long as Israel controls it."
Europe as a European Ethnostate has the right to exist.
Imagine being fired from 109 jobs and claiming it's all your employer's fault...
Jordan Peterson be like: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for jewish children."
Damn, sounds like we should encourage more young women to go into post-secondary education to take psychology during their most fertile years, fuck around with as many guys as possible then get a government subsidized job funded by increasing taxes on hard-working single men so the women can get paid by company insurance policies covering mental health issues to tell the men they just need to change their mindset if they aren't happy with being lonely because there's no decent women to marry in society. Great system we have going.
Usually the most sane people commit suicide in this society. Perhaps she woke up and realized most of her life was a total lie. That's hard for people to handle, especially if they did permanent damage to themselves which a lesbian leftist may have.
You seem to think money itself is something greater than merely a representation of resources. That's all money is. A medium of exchange for resources. So long as people want more resources, you will always have the same problems in a capitalist system or any other. Resources has been something people have sought out since the dawn of time and no amount of "getting rid of money" will solve that. If you want people to pursue things other than money you need to enforce that on people, as has been done before with things like religions but ultimately those "ideas" only ever have teeth because of the resources at their disposal. Power and Resources. That is the basis for human interactions. No amount of "get rid of money" is gong to fix that. Unfortunately, you're just far too idealistic and completely detached from reality to be bothered with. We should probably stop wasting each others time I suppose.
Just because someone wrote it in a book doesn't make it true. Almost every critique Marx has of capitalism is actually an inherent trait of marxism itself and not capitalism.
I do not put materialism above all else. You only presume this because your conception of capitalism is quite skewered. You're conflating way too many concepts into capitalism itself which is evident by your "economic system > ruling ideology". You think economic system controls how people think but this isn't actually true at all. Economic systems are how people try to control things based on how they think already. How many Marxists became Marxists after living in a Marxist system? None. They conceptualized the idea of it because it is in fact ideology > economic system not the other way around.
If you can't understand that, we're way off base. Yes, I fully agree that the current rules of the system promote the system itself. Most systems works like this until the system doesn't work. That can change at any moment that rulers implement the ideologies they want, just like you can fathom a world where materialism doesn't drive purpose without living in such an economic system.
You just refuse to get it through your head. I know the "capitalism" you speak of, the problem is that you don't know it... I'll try another way to get through to you. There is a moral value system that presupposes that the best society is one that maximizes utility. Utility being "happiness" more-or-less. The theory goes that each individual understands what makes them happy better than others. (This is the inherent liberal argument that full negative liberty is superior to a society that limits negative liberty in order to maximize positive liberty. It's an argument grounded in equality where there doesn't exist superior people that can make better decisions than inferior people. It's entirely wrong but that's not the point here, yet...) Since each individual understands what will maximize their utility more than anyone else, the best way to maximize utility in a society is to let each person demand any product/service they want as long as they are willing to pay for it while anyone who is willing to supply a product/service should do so as long as they are paid whatever they want. This theory forms the basis of "free market capitalism" and is essentially the "evil capitalism" you promote. This underlying value is what promotes "capitalism" as you understand the word. Where everything that can be monetized is monetized. Absolutely anything. If there's something willing to pay for farts in a jar, that's a good thing!
This not what I'm argument for at all. Not even close. I don't believe the underlying assumption inherent in this. That anything that can be bought and sold should be bought and sold and that all individuals understand what is in their best interest so it's best to give total freedom to the consumer to buy and sell whatever they want. WRONG. Totally wrong. I would agree with you that this sort of materialism is bad but it's not what I'm arguing for.
To give you an idea of the kind of capitalism I would argue for it would have the following rules:
- Profits earned domestically could not be used to invest in non-domestic ventures unless those ventures had the profit reinvested domestically in a manner that was a net value gain for the domestic country not just for the owners of the capital.
- Immigration of non-whites would only be allowed if white people made up > 95% of the total population, otherwise it would be banned.
- It would be illegal for a business to hire a woman when a man who was equally qualified or better applied for the same job
- Advertising targeted toward children would be illegal.
- Any use of sex appeal to sell a product/service would be illegal and so too would the selling of sex. This includes instagram influencers, tiktok stars, onlyfans, etc...
- Any product or service promoting LGBTQ+ would be illegal.
- All forms of welfare and economic transfers by the government would be abolished. Income taxes would be abolished and replaced with tariffs on international products. If this isn't enough income, then a consumption tax would be implemented in its place.
- Free trade would be illegal under the law. Only trade agreements that benefit the country domestically would be allowed. A trade board would be setup to adjust tariffs on an annual basis to main benefit while not encouraging inefficiencies in domestic production by overly protecting any industry
- Human rights laws would be abolished. Discrimination is perfectly allowed under the law.
- I would look to revise liability laws with regards to corporations. I believe board of directors should be able to be held personally responsible for major fuck ups similar to how a sole proprietor is. If that means no one wants to start a corporation, then so be it but it's something I'd consider because the limited liability aspect of corporations is a big problem.
Anyway, I think you get the idea. All of these rules can be made under capitalism. All I'm saying is that people are free to set prices for their own products and services as well as free to come up with whatever product and service they want so long as they play by the rules. The rules are what determines whether a society is moral or good and these rules set the stage for what people promote in the society. Of course people are going to break the rules and the rules are going to need to be enforced. Even under socialism, people break the rules ALL THE TIME. That's human nature and not anything to do with economic system. You don't get some perfect utopian society of everyone being good people with the right economic system. That's fairy tale fantasy. You need power to enforce your rules and then you need to enforce them on any who break them.
I mean, you are right that this discussion is probably pointless if we can't agree on certain fundamentals to our discussion.
If by releasing the data, some public person can analyze the data faster than paid scientists and come to meaningful results, GREAT. We should stop paying scientists then.
I'm extremely well-read which is probably the problem. I am as absolutely against liberalism, modern morality and Marxism as it gets. I have studied it and I do not agree with it one bit. It doesn't lead to a good outcome for society at all. You'd think you'd have proof of concept already enough with the way society is today. We're living in a liberal marxist modern moral society. This is what you get. You're happy with this? Or are you going to pull the "this isn't REAL modern liberal marxism"...
Capitalism is merely an economic system. Most everything else you describe is a moral system. Do you know what Free Enterprise is? Here is a simple definition:
Free enterprise, or the free market, refers to an economy where the market determines prices, products, and services rather than the government.
That is all I am advocating for. Prices being set by owners. Thing such as "requiring growth", Diversity & Inclusion. Neoliberal Globalism. Climate Change. These are all moral values not inherent in capitalism at all. There's nothing that says capitalism must have these qualities. There's nothing to say socialism must either. Today we have a bunch of LGBTQ+ leftist socialists meanwhile National Socialism was anti-LGBTQ and so too were the Bolsheviks. These things are moral values which underpin a society's economic system.
I can tell from talking to you that you believe capitalism is more than free enterprise and that everything you inherently believe is fucked up with this world is inherent to capitalism. This couldn't be further from the truth. Most of the things that are a problem of society are inherent of liberalism and the moral values it has setup as a foundation to this society. It's liberal values that persist that you must give "liberty" to capital owners to do what they want with what they own. Liberty to do immoral things is not liberty worth having at all. Oh sure, set whatever prices you want but don't sell weapons to our enemies. Don't import in slave labor from other countries to increase profits by driving down labor. Don't tax citizens more and use the funding to subsidies business ventures to exploit the masses. Liberal values though is what is being used specifically to exploit the masses. This idea that we must provide healthcare to all, that we must save the world from climate change, that we must promote equal rights for all sexes, genders, races, handicaps, etc... is specifically how capital is exploiting people; by using your worthless ideal of altruism to extract value from you so you can feel morally virtuous with your joke liberal values.
It's such a fine-line though. I can have sex but choose not to because I can't have sex with attractive enough women. The reason I can't have sex with attractive enough women is because I'm an ugly troglodye and I don't want to go outside or improve myself because I tried that before and it's too much of a minefield, not to mention I'm only an ugly trodlodyte relative to the standards women have set which is what the minefield is.
In reality, I'm probably a 6-7/10 as a man and all I want is what a 6-7/10 woman from the 1990s would have been. Unfortunately, today, 6-7/10 women are what 3-4/10 women were 30 years ago.
You're arguing we need socialism because society is immoral. I am arguing we need to make society moral. You seem like the one who is coping and doesn't actually want to improve society.
Well, you use white to describe race so it gets mixed in the message. Perhaps you could start using Aryan? You likely don't because you probably aren't Aryan but you are white. Truthfully, white people should start using the proper race in discussions. Since race and color are so intermixed, I butcher it all the time. I understand the differences between races better than most.
Believe it or not, in a society without growth, you run into a problem where people truly do have no value. Growth is actually what has been hiding this problem. As growth has been shrinking, we've seen a contraction on resource distribution and this is impacting people's quality of life. The "conspiracy theorists" discuss how the richest in society want to kill billions off because they don't see the value in these people and that could very well be true.
If you are in a community of 20 people where only 10 people own 20% each of the resources and 10 people work for the 10 other people, then you develop technologies to require only 5 people to work. Why employ the other 5? Worse yet, imagine those 5 people have 20 kids between them and now you have 25 people that you don't need in your society. Why should anyone have to support them? Your system forces land-owners to have to give up resources to others on no basis other than quantity of people. You say people have value for their mere existence but this is simply not true and it's unjust to force the existing owners to have to share what they own with others simply because those others exist. The proper thing to do is create incentives in society that stop those 5 people who have no reason to exist from procreating. I of course would rather the land-owners be white people rather than Jews but the Jews are currently working a system where they are the owners. Still, if we had full control over our societies that would still be the ideal. More people for the sake of more people isn't necessarily better. Why share resources with people who do not do anything to earn those resources? It's entirely unjust.
Capitalism doesn't have to necessitate growth if you control the system. Our current capitalist system does indeed promote growth because most people are nothing more than slave labor for the capital owners and given the resources on our planet, more people was in fact better and may in fact still be better to promote the growth of resources but the growth of resources does not have to be the rules of the game. There's nothing to stop socialism from promoting growth of resources either. If those who ran the socialist system wanted to put resource maximization at the forefront they would do so and many socialist countries do in fact do this, at least resource maximization for the people in charge while the rest of society suffers worse than capitalism.
It is very simple to implement a capitalist system and literally ban immigration. There done.
You think I deleted my post? No, it was removed by the mods.
Unfortunately, we will always disagree on this. I do not believe a person has value simply because he is white. Does the person have a higher predisposition toward being value because he is white compared to black, yes. I do believe that. However, a white person can still be worthless. If there is ever a war fought tomorrow over establishing a new imperium and a white guy was standing in my way by promoting a gynocracy and Jewish degeneracy, I would kill him in an instant. His skin color is worthless then.
That chief of diversity does have value to the current system in place. Our moral values are setup wrong. The fact we promote diversity is a problem. We're living in a theocracy where the religious dogma is diversity and inclusion, so yes from the perspective of this moral value system, they do have immense value. The problem is the moral value system which needs to change. Once you change such a system to actually be holy and not degenerate then chief of diversity won't exist because non-whites will be deported and immigration will be banned. Under such a system he will no longer have value of though I suspect if he submited to such a system he would have value in promoting the dogma of the new moral value system.
I agree with your second paragraph completely. I also agree that if charitable groups want to cover the difference, that is all on them.
I want you to understand though that charitable groups will not be able to afford the difference. If your entire argument is based on this presumption that by privatization healthcare it will reduce the cost such that charity groups can easily make up the difference for those who can't afford healthcare, you are wrong. You're selling yourself a fantasy in order to not have to deal with the moral conundrum of not wanting public healthcare but also wanting all people who can't afford healthcare to get treatment. It's a fairy tale and it's why leftists are so opposed to your arguments because they know it's wrong. You will get some donations and some charity but you will not get enough and that's fine. You're going to need to come to terms with that.
Part of the reason charity is better than government is it allows people to control the funds. Perhaps they only want the funds to go toward healthcare related to issues that aren't drug related. That's good. Let them direct the funds on a manner they are most appropriate. It's their money. Only want to treat white people and not blacks? By all mean. Let them. But don't expect there to be enough funds because there won't be.
Also, healthcare will in fact get more expensive not less because the price will properly reflect the supply and demand but this is a good thing. Those with money to spend will spend it which will increase wages in the industry to leading to more innovation and better quality treatment which in the end is a better outcome for society as a whole. Socialized healthcare reduces the innovation in the industry and leads to less effieicnt. We don't divert resources properly given the supply and demand. This is what leads to shortages of workers, not enough hospital beds, not enough doctors, surgeons etc... (Though the doctors guilds and their monopoly on training/certification needs to be abolished also). Privatized healthcare will likely lead to a result where the most cutting edge and best healthcare goes up in price significantly, the average healthcare treatments goes up a little but with much better quality of service. You'll start to see more disparity in the quality of healthcare such as say the difference between money managers that manage $100k at a retail bank vs. money managers that manage $100,000,000 in net worth at a wealth management firm. Middle-class people will have access to better quality healthcare if they are willing to pay for it. Good doctors will be paid more. Bad doctors will be paid less. People will start shopping with their wallet and that's a good thing. The outcome is better. Privatized healthcare is superior in all regards.
I just want to reiterate though that if you fully privatize healthcare some people will not get enough money to get their treatment even with charities funding people and that's fine. If you don't think that's fine you shouldn't promote privatized healthcare. You're just fooling yourself because you can't take the next logical step morally and lose this idea that human life is worth saving for its mere sake. It's not. Your existence doesn't mean you have value and if you don't have value, no one has any reason to save you and no one should be under any obligation to save you if they don't want to.
I do not believe in human rights. I do not believe what you're arguing is moral. I firmly believe letting low value humans die would lead to a much better world. Part of the problem today is that we're trying very hard to go against nature's selection. This forums brings up feminism and gynocracy a lot because they understand women's hypergamic nature. Many single men who add considerable value to society are not getting a good outcome in life because the whole system is designed to take resources from what they generate and give to lesser humans. Men as a whole would get a much better outcome in life if we stopped propping less competent people up with things like universal healthcare among many welfare and resource distribution systems. Let people truly get what they deserve based on their worth based on their contribution to society while designed society itself to be moral (not in the way you suggest but in promoting strength and superior ways to do things). Our society instead oppresses the superior in order to unjustly elevate the inferior. We push victim mentalities onto everyone because people know in order to get ahead you have to pretend to be lesser so society takes from the superior and gives to you. It's an entire system designed to destroy itself by its own scam. A bunch of lazy entitled worthless humans that think their existence means they deserve things. We need to take that away from people and promote a just system that removes concepts like humans rights away entirely. Just because you exist doesn't mean you are guaranteed anything by society. You have to earn your way in life. You'd actually see depression decrease and people would become much happier under such a system that actually promotes people to accomplish things. Much of the problems of the gynocracy would end overnight if we stopped promoting things like humans rights and socialistic resource distribution policies. Make people work to earn their place. All of a sudden women's value plumits and so too do all the worthless leftists in this society. If you can't earn your way in this society you probably shouldn't have even been born. It's true, most people shouldn't have been born and it's not on society to correct for their parents mistakes in having them. When whores are fucking drug dealers and having 8 different kids from 8 different fathers who're in prison, yes those kids may end up dead and that's a good thing. We should not be encouraging people to continue this behavior by incentivizing it with socialism. They get stabbed in a gang fight over selling drugs and can't afford healthcare? Good.
The only reason you think the people you listed don't deserve healthcare over another is because of the inherent corruption in our system. We don't promote a moral national capitalist system and instead promote an immoral international capitalist system so those who climb within the system are often not virtuous people. However, there are many that do climb who are virtuous and just because you don't have money doesn't mean you are virtuous. Many who lack resources in our society do in fact lack value. Overall, our system would be better if we only have healthcare to those who could afford it. We should also make strides towards promoting a more moral nationalist capitalist system so that men like Biden or Zuckerberg aren't able to exploit the system through immoral means to gain resources. That's a separate issue though and shouldn't be conflated.
If all you are to this society is a worker at McDonalds without a strong family who has proven their worth to this society and you get sick with $10,000,000 worth of healthcare, if you cannot plead your case to another rich person willing to volunteer their funds away to pay for your care, then yes, you should die. The strain on our society by diverting resources toward people who contribute very little to keep them alive for the sake of keeping them alive is immense and doesn't actually produce a better society in the end. Every one is going to die. Keeping people alive as long as possible for the sake of doing isn't productive at all nor is it even a good thing. We could be better diverting our resources to other ventures that are better for society.
Now, there are other issues. I get that. Why can drug companies have patents on drugs in the manner in which they do for the length of that that they do. Are IP laws even a good thing? Those are questions we can ask and perhaps make changes to. I will admit that our system is far from perfect but just because the system is imperfect doesn't mean we must promote socialism in healthcare because such a system is also far from the ideal. We should be instead making grounds toward better systems which means tweaking things like IP law and enforcing morality upon society to ensure those who get ahead do so for the right reasons and not for the sake of profit-seeking over exploiting others and promoting moral degeneracy or other ventures that are overall net negatives to the culture of our society.
Ideally speaking, if we have a perfect meritocracy grounded in good solid objective morals then those who can't afford healthcare do in fact deserve to die because only those who can pay for the healthcare themselves or solicit the help of their social networks have contributed enough to society to make keeping them alive worthwhile and in society's interest. This is true equity and justice. Keeping people alive for the sake of keeping people alive is unjust because you are wasting the resources of society as a whole against that society's will to promote a value that by no means is actually a good one. You're throwing valuable resources at a dead end (literally).
There are certain considerations when talking healthcare. What is ideal isn't necessarily attainable given certain realities. The most practical solution to healthcare is to have a bare minimum healthcare that is socialized. Something like that is not too strenuous on resources. You break your arm, you get patched up. You catch an STI, you get some antibiotics. However, all healthcare beyond this should be privatized. You want cutting edge treatment for some rare disease only 3 people in the country also have, then you pay out of pocket.
Funny, because I consider the people who think people deserve healthcare simply because they exist to be the insane ones. If anything given to you requires the labor of another, that is slavery. It's fine if you negotiate a fair price for someone to work for you but if you require them to do work for you in the name of socialism that's as slavery as it gets.
I'm 34yo and I have lived in 8 different cities my whole life. I've moved for work 4 times.
It wasn't worth it.
-
Moving for work usually ends poorly. Most careers are just going to scam you. Put out a big hook and then under deliver. This is especially true if you're moving in hopes of landing something better. Don't do it. You won't land what you want. If the company truly has intentions of moving you up you can negotiate for exactly what you want right now. Anyone who says you need a bit more experience or whatever is scamming you. Otherwise, if they're being honest, get it in writing. Promotion to x job title and salary after 1 year of work. In writing.
-
Moving to get away from politics in your area is usually an abysmal failure. As much as people like to pretend there's a huge difference between blue states and red states for politics. There really isn't. Some of the most leftist idiots I've met have been in the heart of the most conservative areas. Some of the most based people I've met have been in blue hellholes. Oftentimes what matters is the company too. Most big corps you might work for that you'd move for are woke as shit and that makes it a pain to work for them no matter where you're located.
I just really wouldn't recommend it. If you're bored and want to try something then sure. Also, owning a home with no family to put in it is pretty worthless. I know, I own a 3 bedroom home. It's just me. Most rooms don't even have furniture in them. Why would I bother? Investment? Hah, that's a laugh. It's a risk like anything else. Just because it's property doesn't guarantee it'll go up and they are a pain to get rid of if you ever need to.
Polish women are extremely feminist. That country is going to the shitter fast because of its rampant feminism.
There's actually nothing wrong with this. Healthcare shouldn't be universal or socialized. It should be privatized and then many people would die simply because they couldn't afford healthcare and that's a good thing. We shouldn't be investing resources into worthless people.
I believe the research itself is meant to demoralize men more. The parties researching this stuff aren't actually sympathetic and don't mean to help the men. They mean to try and find manipulative ways to change the men to accept society the way society is rather than admit the problems with society.
When feminists said society was treating women poorly, we said okay you're right, we'll change society for you. When men say society is treating them poorly, everyone says fuck you too bad Incel.
Can someone define what an Incel is? Or what they used to define Incel in this study?
A lot of my single friends and myself included refer to ourselves as Incels but all of us can have sex if we wanted to and some do. All we have to do is lower our standards, which from time-to-time we do. Or we just pay for it.
Is Incel just a new disparaging term for single men? Are Incels anything more than single men? Single men who refuse to lower their standards? I have more respect for them than myself. When I sleep with a woman I have to lower my standards for, I feel dirty. It's humiliating to myself and just makes my depression worse. Every time I cave and do it, I swear to myself I won't do it again because of how terrible the sex makes me feel when I have to lower my standards; however, I could never have sex with a woman who met my standards without paying for it so does that make me an Incel then?
They have to dump net zero climate goals because they aren't actually happening, period. Doesn't matter how much even blackrock wants to will it into being, it won't happen.
The environmental parts of ESG isn't actually the bad part because most analysts just went with whatever the value was anyway and companies printing money from O&G didn't really care if they weren't listed because they were still printing money.
The real harm of ESG comes down to Diversity and Inclusions. Companies hiring women for the sake of meeting ESG targets. It is causing immense damage to society as a whole socially. Oppressing men and unjustly elevating women when women are hypergamous to begin with. The result has been absolutely disasterous for male-female relations.