/lit/ - Literature

why is this guy so fucking smug? Why do they depict him like this?

was gonna call op an edgelord but then i realized ive been struggling with this tension of being a good person v. a hardass unfeeling motherfucker for awhile myself. am interested in responses to this thread

>>7072753
Machiavelli was a republican you dumb fuck.

>>7072765
It doesn't matter, he's typically associated with harsh quotes that many find discomforting, so it fits. It's just an image anyway.

>the longer I live for


Your under the age of 25 right?
Fucking hell I hate young people. You'll grow out of it.

>>7072847
By grow out of it you mean become ignorant I assume? How exactly do you "grow out of" reality?

>>7072761
It's how they depicted the elites at the time, the Mona Lisa is another example of pointless smug.

>>7072765
That's what he wants you to think

>>7072753

Because once you succumb to the shittiness of the world, you lose. The last thing these afwul fucking people want is for you to be happy and altruistic despite having life shitting on you at every turn.

Fuck that. Be happy.

>>7072940
What if you're happy being authoritarian though

>>7072753

>The only way to not be swallowed up by these monsters is to become one yourself.

Too bad being an asshole doesn't magically free you from the ubiquity of power relations and you will just turn yourself into an orc for nothing

>>7073041
>>7072940
good posts

>>7072753
>the longer I live
Vast knowledge gained over 16 long years

>>7072753
my answer would be to actually read machiavelli's works.

>>7072940
>>7073041
This tbh.

>being an authoritarian
>being a Marxist
>being an anarchist
>being some random anything
Why do some people feel the need to label themselves? You're an authoritarian? Okay...good for you. What does that even mean. What authoritarian things do you even do? It's like calling yourself a Marxist in capitalist democratic America

Fascism is the best form of rule, as long as the people have the means to rise up and depose a ruler if they get out of hand or go against the nations interest.

I have put some thought into this, and I believe humanity's best hope is to develop a benevolent superintelligent AI to rule us with humanity's best interest at heart.

>>7073137
>I believe humanity's best hope is to develop a benevolent superintelligent AI to rule us with humanity's best interest at heart.
agree 2bh fam

>>7073151

Google is already that. Your decisions are already influenced by the order of search results. If the correct answer is on page 2, it does not exist.

>>7073137
Yeah.

No

>>7072753
don't listen to these shills about being "Gentle in a harsh world". If you can't handle the social reality, go back to fucking Vonnegut.

This shit is simple. Every organism is trying to get as much for itself as it can. Everything that organism does is traceable to this idea. Your black and white thinking of OH DO I BE SWEET OR A MONSTER is ridiculous, it's not like that at all. In a situation where you can do nothing, you allow yourself to be supplicant. IN a situation where you can do something, you allow yourself to become whatever is necessary to ply the advantage.

tl;dr poorly enforced modern notions of "morality" make it that much more rewarding for those who break the rules to exploit those who don't. The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.

If that makes you a monster, then woe betide those who can't be.

>>7073166
watch out we got an anime villain over here

>>7073137
I agree with this guy tbh. It comes down to things Darwin and Freude knew all too well, "man cannot tame himself". Whilst the middle and lower classes have been effectively tamed with marketing, public relations and popular media, the modern aristocracy remains wild and therefore dangerous.

Assuming there is, and always will be an untamed aristocracy, the logical solution is to have something else tame man. A benevolent computer is probably our best near future bet.

>>7073171
this is game theory 101 you fucking dolt. Read a god damn book - and not just one that /lit/ told you to.

>>7073179
i dont disagree it's a dog eat dog world but you always have a choice bruh.

>>7073196
yeah, a choice to lose. Don't be a faggot, sure sour grapes are still grapes, but it doesn't mean you like them.

You're allowing the modern morality ideology to overwrite your will to power and it's gross. You've been tamed m8 - and being tamed is only an advantage if everyone is tamed.

>>7072753
because it's childish (reverting to a life defined by game theory) just because most people can't grow to live outside that paradigm, doesn't mean you should have yourself decrease to it. know the game, just don't waste your life on it.

>>7073200
Gimme a break faggot, some of us don't give a fuck about filling whatever psychological hole with power fantasies. There's something to be said for being assertive and not taking shit from people but you're not some domesticated 1st world cuck if you're not an amoral manipulator.

>>7073215
Nothing is "outside that paradigm". That paradigm is nature. Denial of it only leads to the inconsistencies and discomforts of modern life. Look at the mental olympics the new left SJWs have to perform to justify their opinions. It all stems from a few key lies that keep people supplicant.

>>7073217
i wasn't implying being an amoral manipulator - but i'm saying the system can be broken down into rules, and those who can see and follow those rules as close to breaking point as possible become the most successful; ergo, the corporate sociopath or modern politician.

That is the way it is.

>>7073215
also "Childish", "Decrease", these are value judgments based on a hierarchical system of value implanted in you by sesame street. Try applying formal logic from the bottom and see where it gets you.

>>7073238
>all value judgements are arbitrary

uh oh its that time again

>>7073245
Read the rest of the sentence. Not all are worthless, but those were given to you for a reason. That said, it seems you barely understand yourself, so maybe this is asking too much of you.

>>7073233
>That paradigm is nature.
not for "us", we now have surplus, modern life is extremely consistent and comfortable.
>>7073238
>these are value judgments
no, that would be your naturalism

>>7073266
Environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, firstly. Physically and mentally, we are still in the savannah and under the surface obey it's laws. This actually has remarkable explanatory power, i suggest you have a look at some Sapolsky.

Secondly, my judgments are based off of empirical models and falsifiable hypotheses including game theory and ethology, not to mention the (less falsifiable but effective) works of Freud and Bernays, so.

>>7073266
If we are above nature, then where is your girlfriend you literary beast? Surely the most intelligent and insightful members of society such as yourself should be allowed to reproduce over others whose abilities only include having a nice face, a lot of money or being tall?

Or perhaps you could explain to me why, we, who are above nature still have a far higher violent crime rate between men than women over seemingly trivial disputes such as "Disrespect"?

Having a surplus just means the battlefield for scarcity and value has moved from having sufficient food to something else. Just because the situation has changed, doesn't mean we have.

Was it satire?

>>7073166

"The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. "

Nice quote from Thucydides. You do realize that in the era in which he wrote, had an altogether different morality than this one.

Nietzche describes them best:

>"Yet the reader will note and observe that this Olympian spectator and judge is far from being angry with them and thinking evil of them on this score. " How foolish they are," so thinks he of the misdeeds of mortals — and " folly," " im- prudence," " a little brain disturbance," and nothing more, are what the Greeks, even of the strongest, bravest period, have admitted to be the ground of much that is evil and fatal. — Folly, not sin, do you understand? . . .

>But even this brain disturbance was a problem — " Come, how is it even possible ? How could it have really got in brains like ours, the brains of men of aristocratic ancestry, of men of fortune, of men of good natural endowments, of men of the best society, of men of nobility and virtue ? " This was the question that for century on century the aristocratic Greek put to himself when confronted with every (to him incomprehensible) outrage and sacrilege with which one of his peers had polluted himself. " It must be that a god had infatuated him," he would say at last, nodding his head. — This solution is typical of the Greeks . . . accordingly the gods in those times subserved the functions of justifying man to a certain extent even in evil — in those days they took upon themselves not the punishment, but, what is more noble, the guilt."

By what logic do you assume that we may by this process resemble that which we are not?

>>7073291
nigga what, speak english. Make your claim clearly and reasonably, don't imply it with a Nietzsche quote.

Also of course the morality and culture of greece was different, they were goddamn pirates' sons. They were, however, still human.

If you want to look to see what is most effective method, look at the dealings between nation states before mutually assured destruction.

>>7073306

I'll rephrase my question.

How do you know that Thucydides was asserting a timeless observation on the nature of man, rather than merely observing man's nature at the time at which he lived?

>look at the dealings between nation states before mutually assured destruction.

What a coincidence, I was just about to suggest the grim trigger as the solution to the problem of deviance. Since cheating gives rise to a novel response, it cannot be a Nash equilibria.

>>7073339
It is timeless, what is your argument against it?

>>7073339
your mistake was thinking the quote was a primary source for the thought, it's not. It was a nice tidbit to corroborate it. As you seem to have the fortitude to google game theory, i'm sure you understand that this is a reproducible phenomenon in the social sciences - not that i put much stock in them either - but also throughout known history. It's not just isolated to the greeks in that period.

>>7072753
>The only way to not be swallowed up by these monsters is to become one yourself.
You're not going to be part of the ruling class, OP. You're going to be a slave and you're going to learn to love being fucked in the ass.

>>7073364
quoted for truth

>tfw you will never live in a classical liberal city-state somewhere in the Mediterranean
feels bad lads

>>7073339
furthermore, the grim trigger is not a solution to anything, and "Deviance", in the sociological context to which i assume you're referring, isn't a problem in that respect you mongoloid.

>>7073355

If you must know, I do believe it is timeless. But I will not allow myself to be biased by mere belief. I demand evidence. You sir, Game Theory 101 cadet, please postulate.

You see, as you undergo empirical testing, the problem is that people do not pick the dominant outcomes. This purely rational model breaks down when faced with our irrationality.

I smell an omitted variable. For me at least, the equation remains unsolved. Doesn't that bother you? It bothers me. Our entire discipline, held ransom by the foolishness of the laymen. Econ students would pick the dominant outcomes, but the untrained were barely better than random. Were the Greeks simply more rational than we?

>>7073133
Noun: authoritarian
A person who behaves in a tyrannical manner

It's not that complicated, it means you act authoritative, forceful and steadfast in behavior.

>>7073380
[citation needed]
[elaborate?]

stop hiding your inadequacy behind neurotic complexity. it's tiring. The burden of truth is on you, friendo.

>>7073393
proof* having a stroke.

>>7073393

Heh, I hope you don't find wikipedia too neurotic:

>The central issue in behavioral finance is explaining why market participants make irrational systematic errors

>the central issue

Typically a citation is not needed when the subject in question is ubiquitous, Mr. Clearly Not An Econ Prof.

>>7073380
>You see, as you undergo empirical testing, the problem is that people do not pick the dominant outcomes
I'm >>7073355 I'm not the other anon that knows about game theory, pick the outcome of what? I don't really understand what you're trying to say but if someone chooses a non logical outcome "just because" it could be because he wants to appear special which is a form of dominance, is that what you're refering to?

>>7073403
I'm not an economist, as should be obvious by my repeated mention of psychologists and biologists. Isn't this already explained by rational actor theory? Assuming that all participants are rational actors is useful to an extent but ultimately limits it's predictive power.

i thought this was obvious. You can only derive so much about the actor by looking at the market.

>>7073406

Basically that phrase means that the "rational" choices that guy was proposing are not in practice chosen, and that this is a tested/testable hypothesis.

>>7072753
The world needs soldiers, politicians, doctors, business entrepreneurs and engineers, but there is no need for you to be one of them, since there's a surplus of these.

I'm also into a meme-ruling system and believe monarchism to be the right way to be ruled, but since I don't really care that much about it my defense of it would be superficial at best.

What works could I read that teach the value of monarchism?

>>7073417
I don't see how that is a counter argument to op's idea

>>7073380

can we just agree that that dude panicked when his intellectual self esteem was compromised and derailed the argument? yes?

good, let's move on.

>>7073133
Memes have ruled man long enough, we must rid the world of memes.
We must use the meme of getting rid of memes as a means of its own literal end.

>>7073449

Moving on, let us discuss the shame OP has brought to his family.

>>7073421

Leviathan, if you haven't.

>>7073457
You just used over 20 memes. What do you think words are?

>>7073464
OP stop being a bitch and develop the will to take.

>>7073449
what dude?

>>7073529

dude

>>7073540
he abides

>>7073554

>>7072765
He promoted cynicism and corruption.

>>7073133
“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”
― Jiddu Krishnamurti

>>7073631
Something about that seems contradictory. So separating yourself from others breeds violence, but then he suggests you separate yourself from the entire planet?

>>7073644
He's not suggesting separation at all

He's saying that labeling yourself and identifying with ideologies automatically places you into an 'us vs them' mindset and that will always result in violence, and the only way to avoid this is to never pigeonhole yourself by identifying as anything beyond yourself.

Framing this as 'separation' is honestly just the sort of 'you're either with us or against us' mentality that he's trying to avoid. Rather than view a man with no allegiance as everyone's enemy, Jiddu thinks that is the only sort of man who could be everyone's friend.

>>7073671
But in the end I'm sure he identified himself with those who don't identify themselves with anything, it's just inevitable. Even saying this at all implies violence in a sense.

I think it's better to have comrades and a good war to fight anyway. It's healthier.

Let the sloth be your spirit animal.
>moves very slowly
>gives no fucks
>lives high in trees eating leaves nothing else eats
>out of sight, out of mind
>only goes groundside to take a shit
>worthless to kill because hooked limbs keep its corpse in the tree
>stays 100% out of the fray
>one of the most successful animals of all time

>>7073695
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90M7kH5wCtA

>>7073691
>But in the end I'm sure he identified himself with those who don't identify themselves with anything, it's just inevitable.

Is your next line going to be 'atheism is a religion?'
'those who don't identify themselves with anything' is not a meaningful label, because 'not being X' never has and never will imply 'being Y.'
I don't believe in Krishna but there's no 'not believing in Krishna' group that I'm affiliated with.

tbh I almost didn't bother responding because of your spook-filled adulation of the 'healthiness' of war and the blatantly ridiculous notion that you need ideology to have comrades, but whatever, maybe you're not as inflexibly mired in your worldview as you appear

>>7073705
>nearly defeats a puma one on one by sitting still
>more numerous by 100000x than pumas
>m-muh puma

>>7073705
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f57SFS_QDQw

>>7072765
Yeah, and republics are governed by aristocrats. You ready for Clinton 2 vs Bush 3?

>>7072765
btfo by
>>7073764

Always gonna be princes.

>>7072761
because he's inside your girlfriend right now

>>7072765
>guaranteed_replies.jpg

erry tiem there's a machiavelli thread, this happens.

>>7072753
mo money mo problems

>>7073137
>Fascism is the best form of rule, as long as the people have the means to rise up and depose a ruler if they get out of hand or go against the nations interest.

Its not really fascism unless its total and destroys opponents.

Also those who think fascism is great; where are you in the hierarchy of your utopia?

Because unless you're the dictator, someone's above you giving orders that you have to obey unquestioningly.

>>7073695
Yeah but lots of bugs and moths live in its fur, its a dirty piece of shit animal.

>>7073846
a bunch of mites and critters live on you dirty animal, get your double-standards outta here

>>7073846
>hating on bugs and moths
What gives?

>>7073179
Hasn't game theory/biology also arrived at the conclusion that individuals can be altruistic and act in favor of the group, even if it is detrimental to himself? Maybe the attitude of rejecting authoritarianism is rational when leading to a overall maximum utility

>>7073982
No.

>>7073993
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

>>7073277
so let me get this straight, the downy girl is friendzoning a downy boy, because she has a normal boyfriend? sweet jesus.

>>7074000
i feel bad for robbie tbh

>>7073277
>falsifiable hypotheses including game theory
how to contradict yourself in 5 words

>>7073631

I like this. I think it helps to explain something about me that I'd never fully understood myself: my discomfiture with all labels, clubs, identities and clans.

>>7072753
>How can you not be an authoritarian in this world?

There are plenty of communities where being an asshole isn't accepted.

>>7072753
>Cashier at Walgreens is disrespectful to me
>I shrug it off and leave the store; he's probably having a bad day
>My enemies interpret this as a sign of weakness
>A raiding party confronts me in the carpark and steals my secondhand Hyndai
>They descend on my cul-de-sac late that day, rape, pillage and salt the earth in my mom's herb garden

You tried to warn me, OP, but I didn't listen.

>>7073982
altruism is explained biologically yes, but by kin selection, which is predicated on you having kin. You can hijack this urge and generalise the altruism as is seen in many modern societies but this is generally the root of it.

>>7074018
game theory is falsifiable. If it doesn't work, the game doesn't work. The issue is only when generalizing and up scaling the hypotheses to the modern world, or using them out of context, or in a context with more variables than the simple closed system games from which the principles are derived.

>>7072753
My edgelord oppinion is that being nice is a luxury for the strong.

I like to be nice, but i work hard to have peoples respect in order to do so.

However, i do think you can also look out for genuinely nice people and make sure they don't get taken advantage of.

>>7072753
Well first off you're wrong. Although the people with the most power in our society do tend to be the least pleasant, thankfully since Machiavelli we have developed something called modern society, which includes the rule of law, hence they can't kill you or make you a slave.

>>7074458
But everyone is still a slave to the law and the bills that they pay. Only a very small group of wealthy people are really free.

What of a man who strives for power to give others freedom?

>>7074924
You have to be more authoritarian than everyone else to accomplish that.

>>7072934
lol at the title. Not-so-subtle bait.

>>7073023
Are you immensely rich? Are you in some kind of gang/mafia where you've made it to the higher positions?

>>7074924
A tyrant? Yeah, they fail. Once in power, your allies become your rivals and shit starts to hit the fan.

>>7073982
>overall maximum utility
Your post kind of made sense until this bullshit concept.

>>7074894
Economic and legal relations don't constitute slavery, Anon. You're perfectly free to become a homeless vagrant in the Alaskan wilderness, if you were to chose so.

>>7074961
Fun fact: in Ancient Greece, some slaves had more of what we call freedom than the average contemporary occidental man.

>>7074961
I don't think most people's definition of freedom is freedom to make the situation worse for yourself and take away even more opportunities and luxuries from yourself. But if it's yours, hey, I guess you're already free.

>>7074974
But economic and social opportunities aren't things that can reasonably be 'free', since they're borne out of some form of contract with other agents. Your landlord isn't keeping you in bondage because he expects you to pay rent.

>>7074961
>if you want to be free you can go to this one inhospitable place we don't want, stop whining that we took all the good places

>>7074997
What makes having to pay bills, loans, expenses, etc. slavery is the fact that you must work to continue paying them, and anyone who does not have 2/3 of the day to themselves is a slave. The only people with that time on their hands is people with money and the homeless, but choosing to just go homeless is a non-option for anyone with sense and not at all a type of freedom anyone wants. Plus, the homeless don't really have any time to themselves, every day of their lives is a constant struggle to fucking eat, fight sickness, find shelter and not commit suicide from envy or shame. Also, the law is a type of slavery in the sense that it prohibits you.

There is actually a third group of people who are free, criminals. Assuming they haven't been caught yet. Most governments are founded by criminals in a certain sense.

>>7073104
My boy Epicurus! Someone else finally gets this

>all these "be happy!" effeminizing twats
You'll fuck us all over once we encounter a war-faring alien species.

>>7072753
Because how you act towards people says something about YOU, OP.

If other people are psychopathic, what does it help acting the same way? Nothing.

Buy a gun, and defend yourself in need, but be kind to other human beings, for we are all fellow sufferers.

>>7072753
>The longer I live for,
you're not that old, wise or worldly

>>7075030
Then would it not make sense for man to ensure that was he does enslave himself to is worth his while?

>>7075030

>anyone who does not have 2/3 of the day to themselves is a slave.

Well of course if you start with a ridiculous arbitrary definition like that, it's going to lead you to some stupid fucking definitions. Nobody ever had 2/3 of the day to themselves until society advanced enough to support criminals and aristocrats.

>>7076346
There was no real understanding of a slave before then either. Also, it's a quote from Nietzsche:

>Today as always, men fall into two groups: slaves and free men. Whoever does not have two-thirds of his day for himself, is a slave, whatever he may be: a statesman, a businessman, an official, or a scholar.

>>7076365

Nietzsche is full of shit. People have always worked to survive, to call that slavery is absurd; it's offensive to them and offensive to slaves.

>>7076385
It's not absurd when there are people now who really do have most of the day to themselves, thanks to the advancement of society. It's also perfectly in line with the definition of a slave. If you have no choice but to dote on others for the majority of your day, guess what? You're a slave, that's exactly what it means to be one.

>>7076389
No, a slave is deprived of choice; he's coerced into submission. Not having your time to yourself is nothing akin to slavery, since you always have the choice of quitting whatever it is that you do, even if it would be the equivalent of a financial suicide.

>>7076428
>even if it would be the equivalent of a financial suicide
Then it's not a choice.

>>7076435
Yes, it is. Get your terminology straight before starting pointless arguments.

>>7076440

Yeah, and a slave could refuse to work, even if he would be whipped.

>>7076389

>You're a slave, that's exactly what it means to be one.

No. It's not. You're being facile, obtuse and probably disingenuous.

I spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week having my professional services whored out to clients. In that sense I meet your definition of a slave. But I get a good pay cheque and I have the freedom to seek a different job if I don't like my current one. I get enough time off from work to travel, pursue my hobbies and cultivate friendships and acquaintances. I have people I love around me and, again, I have autonomy to change my circumstances if I want to.

To call me a slave might make you feel better, but it's meaningless. It devalues the word and achieves nothing except helping you shore up your edgelord identity as a red piller or whatever.

>>7076489
You're a fucking retard who can't do simple math, so I doubt you even have a good job.

>>7076489

Oh, sure, if that's the point that you want to pick me up on then you're right. I kind of assumed that it was you who couldn't do math since you were talking about 9-5 workers like they were slaves by that definition.

Does it really make a fundamental difference to the slave/non-slave status of a person if they work a few more hours per week than that?

>>7076489
What is the qualitative difference between working 40 hours a week with no choice of whether to work and working 40 hours a week with the choice to work, but if you choose not to do so you will not have your basic needs met and hence die?

>b-but I want to work, that means I'm not a slave!

>>7076535

This is such a retarded argument. Even if you have £20m a year income from investments, you still have to eat and sleep and take a shit, so I guess you're still a slave since some of your actions are constrained, right?

>>7076547
>hey, there are some things you have to do, so that makes it okay that you have to do a lot of other things as well!

>>7076581

Okay, so we both agree that having your activity constrained in some way doesn't make you a slave. We're just arguing about where we drawn the line between a slave and a free man. You apparently think that anybody who has to work for a living is a slave. I don't feel that's a helpful definition, and it's sure as fuck not what you'll find in any dictionary, but if you want to keep using that definition in your own head then I guess that's fine?

If working for a living makes me a slave to you then that's fine, your opinion really isn't that important to me. If masters and slaves is how you want to look at the world then I'm sure confirmation bias will help you get more and more embittered and arrogant.

>>7076629
I'm not the guy you were arguing with, I just wanted you to know your argument was silly.

I do consider someone dependant on a wage to live a slave though since he quite literally can't afford not to obey people all day long. If someone has the power to tell you what to do you are practically pretty much his property.

It's not a new way of thinking either. For most of the history of civilisation working has been looked down upon as an activity for lowly people.

>>7072753
This implies that literally anyone not in power lives an unhappy life.

Checkmate.

>>7074131
underrated post

>>7076681
Happiness is overrated

"To fight the Empire is to be infected by its derangement. This is a paradox; whoever defeats a segment of the Empire becomes the Empire; it proliferates like a virus, imposing its form on its enemies. Thereby it becomes its enemies."

- P.K.D

>>7076547
Technically yes, you are a slave to your physical body's needs. But it's pretty pointless to assert this as such and we get pleasure out of satisfying our body anyway.

Working for someone, however, that's a different story. If you had all your bills paid and needs taken care of and you still "worked" because you wanted to achieve or create something, that's different, that is definitely a choice made by a free man. That is barely "work," that would be your creative pleasure. But if you are working because you really have no choice, it's something being forced on you, whether you're able to enjoy what you do or not, that's slavery. That was not your choice, and it takes up a good portion of your day. I'm in the worker's boat right now too but I don't have a problem calling it like it is.

It's fine to be gentle and lenient if you don't wish to engage in the world too much. Otherwise you need to learn how to be a dick.

the issue is this: We are an increasingly domesticated race. You can't really operate on the ideas of a Borgia in today's democratic society, where liberalism reigns, which is why the ubermensch will never appear.

The best you can do is dodge resentment and nihilism by focusing on improving yourself.

>>7076669
>>7077172

This is so dumb. A man who has to hunt and forage for his dinner is not a slave. A man who tends his crops is not a slave. Modern employment is just an extrapolation of that. Complain about modern employment conditions if you want, but bitching that the need to work for a living makes a man a slave is just nonsense.

And looking down on work as 'an activity for lowly people' is just an attitude for parasites.

>>7072753
Machiavelli's writings were a joke you fucking plebeians.
He wrote it to parody corrupt politicians at the time.

>>7073137

The sovereign Lord

>>7077426
pls explain why Jesus Christ wasn't the ubermensch to end all ubermenschen

>2000 years later and people are still ready to die for him

how is a Caesar or a Napoleon or a fucking Borgia ever going to live up to this?
nobody is scared of Julius Caesar anymore, but people are still afraid that Christ will judge them. Julius Caesar was sensitive about his baldness lmao.

>>7078657
>implying the Ubermensch wasn't just Nietzsche's drug-fuelled vision of the Beast/Antichrist

>>7078657
You have to have existed to be the Ubermensch.

>>7078699

A 'ghost' has had more impact on history than you can even fathom. How does this make you feel, bet it makes you feel like you have to post on /lit/

>>7078719
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrQWhFysPKY

>>7078729

Didnt watch lel just posting to let u know

>>7073631
Imagine aaaall the peeople
liiving liiife in peaace
yoo-whoo-oo-hoo-oo

XD

>>7078734
I think that anon was implying it makes him sad.

>>7073631
Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.

>>7073631
>So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”

a man who is seeking to understand violence can´t feel part of mankind because that breeds violence too. krishnamurti is cool but have flawed in this.

>>7078541
>his is so dumb. A man who has to hunt and forage for his dinner is not a slave. A man who tends his crops is not a slave. Modern employment is just an extrapolation of that. Complain about modern employment conditions if you want, but bitching that the need to work for a living makes a man a slave is just nonsense.
A man who tends to his crops and then proceeds to give a large part of it to his local lord is a serf. Modern employment is just like that.

>And looking down on work as 'an activity for lowly people' is just an attitude for parasites.
*aristocrats

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMkt1Vq7tJ4

>>7073631
>speciesism

>>7072753
because authoritarianism is only necessary in situations of social breakdown. I live in a black part of a city the public libraries need to have ludicrous and obvious rules posted everywhere. I've been there and have had to step over a sprawled out black guy sleeping on the ground. This kind of social breakdown needs a huge bureaucracy and draconian laws to keep it somewhat functional.

Highly functional communities (mormons, for example) don't need any of this at all. They barely even need welfare because their level of social functionality is so high.

>>7079174

>*aristocrats

You say potato, I say potato. Let's call the whole thing off.

Taxation in the context of political representation is not even close to serfdom. Read some political theory, or just get a grip and stop projecting your edgy sensibilities on the rest of mankind.

>>7079770
>representation
>100 million retards get to drown out my own decisiosn
lel

>>7079780

>Read some political theory, or just get a grip and stop projecting your edgy sensibilities on the rest of mankind.

>>7079770
>Taxation in the context of political representation is not even close to serfdom.
I was referring to the relationship a wageslave has with his employer rather than his political representatives. Although you could say handing off your earnings as protection money to the group with the monopoly on violence makes contemporary political representation a lot like serfdom as well.

>. Read some political theory, or just get a grip and stop projecting your edgy sensibilities on the rest of mankind.
If not being in favour of whoring half of your waking hours away is edgy than I'll gladly be edgy. All the political theory in the world is not going to change that wage dependency is wage dependency.

>>7073705
Holy shit ;_____;

>>7073631
>When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence.

Rather gloomy.

I think it entirely possible to label ourselves by belief, nationality, tradition etc and work together harmoniously. In fact the things which make us different can bring us together in good ways too.

>>7073705
Sloth won since he didn't care.

>>7079787
man you're one angry fellow

>>7079770
Dude, the working class is not the upper class. The aristocracies have traditionally never been a part of the working class. There is no class lower than the working class today, which makes the working class the lowest, which makes that class the closest equivalent to slavery (i.e. forced labor WHICH IS WHAT HAVING TO WORK TO MAKE ENDS MEET IS). The conditions of the slave (i.e. today's workers) is far better than it has been in the past, but this does not change the fact it is still a form of slavery/forced labor. I am not at liberty to do anything I want, or to just stop working, I was enlisted at birth due to my family's financial situation, like someone born into a line of slaves.

Get a little more intuitive about the situation already and stop being so bookworm-ish about it.

>>7072764
An interesting book to read might be "getting to yes." There are different negotiation tactics available. Most people choose one of two extremes: being a pussy and giving (appeasement). or being a hardass and taking (playing hardball). In short these are positional bargaining strategies, which are inherently limiting in most respects.

Point isn't "be a good person", but that being a hardass is a tactic to be used at certain points, and even then it's pretty much always inferior to addressing desires and wants instead of positions. And anyway as long as you're playing by your own rules and making your own decisions with awareness of the costs associated with any of them, you're good anyway

>>7078759
this tbh

>>7076346
>Nobody ever had 2/3 of the day to themselves until society advanced enough to support criminals and aristocrats.
>implying being a succesful criminal is easy

>>7080021

> Why can't people just support me for nothing?, wahhhh, i'm a slave because I don't get everything for free.

>>7076346
>Nobody ever had 2/3 of the day to themselves until society advanced enough to support criminals and aristocrats.
And then criminals and aristocrats literally invented civilisation.

Do you think the Greeks could have come up with all that shit if they were busy working the land alongside the slaves and peasants?

Any progress in the world is the result of a certain portion of people becoming exempt from subsistence drudgery.

>>7081027
He's right, but today the working classes like to pretend they're something more than they are.

The greatest invention of the upper classes is to invent the notion of the middle class, which is nothing but a vain phrase for the more comfortable members of the working class. The best way to stop someone from being begrudging about being working class is making him belief that he isn't. Then you get people like you who call taking orders for 40 hours a week freedom. To realise that this is less than ideal you have to admit that it is, and most middle class people are too vain to consider themselves tools even when they are, so people are complacent out of sheer embarrassment of exposing themselves for what they are.

Perfect divide and conquer of the lads in charge tbh.

>>7073671
Uttely ridiculous, it sounds like he has no idea of the fractious aspects at stake with competing interests. Conflict is a natural part of every living creature on this planet, while it can be a process for destruction, it is also the underlying principl in Hegels dialetic of history "growth through conflict". This is not to say we should glamourise conflict, but understand that sometimes in building peace, you have to disturb the peace.

>Why do men live in eternal combat? Even trees strangle each other when the grow up. Would you ask them to strive for universal peace - Solzhhenitsyn

>>7081027
I'm not whining, if anything the guy arguing that workers are NOT slaves is the one with the problem.

>>7072753
>authoritarians who want to be an authority

Literally the shittiest of shit-tier outlooks.

I could even have some understanding (disagreement, but understanding) if you believed strict/brutal authority was necessary in order to organize society. But being an authoritarian out of the hope of benefiting off of it is shit-tier. You don't have a cogent belief system, you're just hoping to be opportunistic (but in reality, just helping someone else without knowing it).

>>7081192
What if you believed it was necessary to be authoritative in order to win?