/lit/ - Literature

Usury is never acceptable. Capitalism needs a flogging, on her knees, a sopping grail.

REPRESENTATION IS DEAD!!!

I don't believe that any method of governance is correct, but I hold views that have a subjective value to me.

Yep I am an ancap

>>3093109
Do you suppose that capitalism would work better without usury?

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

Strongly against being ruled by large corporations. Not strongly for anything unfortunately.

i'm a national socialist (but not a nazi), but i generally tend to take emil cioran's position on fanaticism. probably a skeptic more than anything else.

>>3093105
Back to >>>/pol/ with you

>>3093125
ok

Culture is inextricably linked to politics. Of course I do.

>>3093127
Are you *CULTURE*, mere human?

Within its frame have you knelt to die?

Rest In A Peaceful Slumber.

>>3093122
Nazi is an abbraviation of national socialist.

I do, but I'm not someone who shoves it down your throat every chance I get
>that person who only talks about politics, isn't open for any criticism and needs to make a political issue out of everything

i'm a firm believer in individualist anarchism

>>3093122
Nazi comes from NAZIonal Sozialist

>>3093132
>>3093134

I think he is aware, but he was trying to escape the demonification of looking up to Nazi Germany that is still so present today

>>3093134
all nazis are national socialists but not all national socialists are nazis. that's like saying all communists are stalinists.

I believe in slave morality and believe we are blessed to have an opportunity to be ruled by big strong manly man Romney.

>>3093133
>I'm an uninformed insecure faggot that when approached for political discourse I cower like a little bitch and run to 4chan to vent

I'm a strong environmentalist. And no, I'm not a vegetarian. I just feel the biggest crises facing humanity in the next 100 years will be environmental and we need to do a lot more to be both preventing and preparing for them.

All political systems are inherently evil and doomed to fail.

The only solution for our species is to evolve and accept things branded as 'Utopias'.

It is a shame people will continue throwing excuses around as to why such a system would never work because of argumentation fallacies and appeals to nature.

>>3093154
same here. it strikes me as pretty much the only political issue that really matters any more. i mean _really_ matters. i'm the nat-soc guy btw - for some reason people are always shocked when a "racist" expresses concern about the environment.

>>3093144
That's not what I mean. But whatever

>>3093158

Well you get a lot of Malthusian solutions to environmental problems that National Socialists probably wouldn't mind. One famous one is that we should giving aid to poorer countries and let them all die off: there are too many people and while it may be unfair to let the richer nations live it's either just us alive or no one at all.

However, afraid to say I am rather left-wing so probably disagree with everything you do except environmental issues.

I find some form of pragmatic national socialism (in the literal sense of the words) to be very sympathetic . I like welfare states such as in western and northern Europe, but I think they can only succeed in the long run when one is very protective of this state. Utopia doesn't function if everyone is allowed to enter and idly benefit from it. I'm more of a socialist that sees a certain degree of nationalism as necessary for socialism to succeed. Do note that I'm not a racist, I have no problem with people of other ethnicities remaining here or being treated equally, but I would like to stop immigration I am however a culturalist and do believe non-European cultures to be generally inferior and within Europe I find the Germanic cultures superior. This is not because of some contrived concept of Aryan superiority or such nonsense, it just seems that these are the cultures that generally have their shit together.

I guess my ideal would be the dissolution of the European Union and countries going back to their own coin and being mostly independent, but with a strong and official economical alliance between as much continental Germanic European countries (and Finland) that are willing to join.

Of course this is all a pipe dream and we will head towards more globalisation, with the result that all the redeeming qualities of the parts of Europe that I appreciate so much will become more and more diluted with values of other cultures, eventually leading to the failure of the welfare state and all the troubles that come with it.

Don't worry. They're going to cool the planet by pumping sulfates into the air. They learned this technique from volcanoes. It's scary. Skies won't be blue any more and other scary things, but because of the tight grip corporations have over the holy, it's the most likely scenario.

global world goverment

Most other ideas are just temponary solutions, with the current nations there is no fairness/balance and since nature always goes for balance, they are doomed to fail sooner or later, no matter which political system they got.

>>3093227
>nature always goes for balance
Where did you get that idea? If nature strives for balance there would be nothing. Existence is basically an imbalance in the void. Nature is precisely imbalance and the wild creation of perpetual chaos.

The Union must be preserved.

>>3093232
you're talking bollocks, if nature was precisely imbalanced, it would cease to exist at all

anyway, the world is *leading* into nothingness, it just takes quite bit of time

>>3093232
Well, who knows what happens after the universe expands far enough, in couple billions of light years it might just pull a restart and kill off all life. Not that it is relevant for humans who think and live in much smaller dimensions.

>>3093254
Non-existence is more balanced than existence, since there's no way to get out of balanced if there's nothing there. Nature is imbalanced since it is constantly ceasing to exist, while of course spawning more of itself into existence at the same time. Flux is per definition imbalanced, in the same way that the water in a glass ripples when disturbed. Balance is static and the only thing static is nothingness.

>>3093256
>in couple billions of light years it might just pull a restart and kill off all life

Jesus Christ. Light years is a measure of distance, not time.

Also, There is no 'restart' unless there is some form of peak size that expansion will reach before collapsing in on itself, but that theory was discarded decades ago. We are expanding at such a rate that the universe is just going to frazel out, with individual galaxies eventually collapsing in on themselves, and all other matter drifting apart into an almost steady state. The universe will descend into a state of no thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life. It will reach maximum entropy.

>>3093256
"Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened" - F. N.

>>3093270
hm, I agree, I never thought that nature has achieved absolute balance

however what I am saying is, in short-term the relative balance it has is rather impressive

>>3093282
In the sense that it is balanced enough to have sentient beings are fairly confident they can go decades without falling apart, yes.

On the other hand, our lives may be simply too short to see that what we regard as balance is actually an ongoing explosion, in slow motion from our perspectives, so slow we don't even notice it. If you were a tiny person living for a nanosecond, you would feel like you could build a city on a falling leaf. Someone living long enough for that falling leaf event be nothing more than a tiny fraction of one's own life, it's gone in a mere moment.

>>3093168
Wow, people actually believe that? That's amazing and the complete opposite of what would happen if you further impoverished countries that already have enormous birth rates.

>>3093168
National Socialists are pretty left wing as well, they're just not internationalist.

>>3093303
What do you think would happen if we cut off all aid to the third world then?

>>3093274
When was the cyclic therory disproved o.O?

>>3093274
It takes time to travel billions of light years.

>>3093352
that doesn't.. I don't... what?

>>3093274
>Light years is a measure of distance, not time.
>separating space and time
>not considering them as a singular "spacetime" where distance and time are equivalent
>being in the light cone which is emanating from this point in the common era 2012
Ishy=diggy*doo squared

>>3093358
Are you dense?

>>3093369
It doesn't take time to travel billions of light years if you do it real fast.

>>3093366
"lightyear (symbol: ly), is a unit of length equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (or about 6 trillion miles)"

>>3093105
I want hitler back..

>>3093374
>>3093373
Not sure if serious. How much time would it take to travel 10 trillion km at the speed of light?

>>3093373
That's only because all distances are related to light years now. Prevents any problems with dilation due to differing reference frames.

>>3093379
No time at all. Objects moving at the speed of light experience time dilation to the degree that time stops moving.

I'm an individual anarchist.

>>3093379
>How much time would it take to travel 10 trillion km at the speed of light?

No time. To avoid the exponential increase in mass, the only way to do it would be to have no mass.

>>3093388
>the only way to do it would be to have no mass
This is what atheists want you to believe.

>>3093319
they would be forced to start developing

>>3093394
Mass: The Sunday expression on a Clergymans face when his holiest of holies is being orally washed by a 12 year old boy.

>>3093385

lol

>>3093396
Good luck to develop when somebody steals your resources and fucks your shit up. Totally isolation would help maybe but its not a realistic scenario.

>>3093394
8/10 laughed heartily

I hate democracy.

>>3093411
Status quo would reassert itself eventually, and they would begin to develop again.

I don't like usury.

political discussion is the grown-up equivalent to comparing super heroes. Both are absolutely pointless and both are just used to pass time.

You will never be able to implement a Superman vs. Batman, and you will never have any meaningful effect in politics.

>>3094550
>you will never have any meaningful effect in politics.
Someone will or else it wouldn't exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhUNrpX8Rx4

>>3094550
This. Ideology is largely the impractical domain of idiots, although it is interesting enough.

Best to understand the system and it's tendencies as a whole

>>3094550
Who would win: David Cameron Vs Obama?

>>3093105

Yes.

>>3094581
Obama. Cameron has next to no support, his own party are not that fond of him. He also U-turns like it's going out of style. A leaked memo from Obama also indicated he didn't think much of Cameron.

>>3094750
>a leftist doesn't think much of a rightist
No fucking way.

>>3094763
>Obama
>Left

If only.

Yes. Extreme-Left, Anarcho-Communism.

>>3094767
His right-wing policies are just clever camouflage to hide his communist convictions.

>>3094763
Cameron isn't overtly right, he's one of these neoliberals that has infected British politic. He was also described by Obama as "lightweight", which is accurate.

To some extent. I consider myself an anarchist but I recognise that for anarchism to ever work you need enlightened, compassionate and intelligent human beings working together in a caring and functioning society.

And that shit will
never
ever
happen.

So yeah, I just go with socialist I guess.

political test said i'm a cosmopolitan social democrat. read up on it and it seems accurate, i might look into it more.

captcha: economic etstona

Yes, very strong. Anarchist here. I don't subscribe to one particular anarchist school at this time but study all of them.

Btw /lit/ is infinitely better at at holding political discussions than /pol/, I must say, especially when it comes to political theory and in particular socialist theory.

>>3094550
This is pretty much how I feel. Politics is for plebs.

>>3094550
>>3094805

Children.

>>3094805

>>3094805
That hurts.

>>3093169
> it just seems that these are the cultures that generally have their shit together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnung_muss_sein

All ideal forms of government are the exact same system looked at from different angles. Arguing about the facets is pointless.

>>3094835

Go on.

>>3094835
i agree with this. they're cultural systems and all cultural systems work. the rest just comes down to taste. that being said, i personally lean to the left. i care more about helping others from a position of privilege than using that privilege to further myself