For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.
Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies. (For a discussion of the reasons, see “The Anatomy of Compromise” in my book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)
James Johnson
Cringeworthy.
Benjamin Morales
5pm so in like one hour
Isaac Miller
I don't get this image.
Henry Russell
@108001524 @108001895
Jackson Wright
MPG on this must be pretty bad
William Miller
>on Sup Forums >complaining about anime You would have had a stroke if you were here 10 years ago lad.
Aiden Martinez
The “libertarians” . . . plagiarize Ayn Rand’s principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute . . . .In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the “libertarians” are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivism and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one’s own future.
James Ross
I will rape (((you)))
I know where you live
Dominic Morgan
It's telling that you don't considering your other post ITT you slime
Jason Gomez
What will Trumps hair be like after four years in office?
Luis Torres
>Implying the /r/the_donnald alt-right drones don't hate anime
Noah Richardson
...
Dominic Perez
will the bullying ever stop
Noah Miller
>Tory >jew Dave's young brother?
Cameron Scott
>he now knows about the shape shifting lizards >he can't back out of it now >he wants to be shot
Bentley Jackson
...
Asher Wright
>Atheist >Conservative LOL
Nicholas Roberts
HILDAWG HAS JOINED THE FIGHT
SHE GONNA CRY
Cameron Gray
...
Henry Reyes
@108001980 stop replying like this you mong
Bentley Bell
>tfw you know that Donald Drumpf will soon be impeached for being and evil fascist, racist, homophobic, transphobic bigot.
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice — which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction — which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value — and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.
Oliver Torres
>Deliberately spreading fake news
Michael Robinson
>Hillary is going to watch Trump's inauguration in person
Haha her soul is going to be destroyed
Brody Davis
JUST
Nathaniel Cox
He also denied the Brexit vote was an example of populism and claimed the UK would pay a “huge price” for putting lower immigration before access to the EU’s Single Market.
The Chancellor also insisted it was vital for the UK to remain “an open economy and an outward-looking society”.
“I do not doubt that a section of the population is disillusioned by the obsolescence of their skills and the stagnant real wages that implies, and happy to kick the political establishment when given an opportunity to do so. And we, as politicians, need to hear that message and react to it,” he said.
“But it’s a big step to say the UK electorate as a whole is fundamentally rejecting capitalism or globalisation. It isn’t.
-----
What a cuck.
Carson Morales
They love anime and post awooos dummy.
Ian Howard
Don't you just hate in when you get stuck in traffic behind a film crew?
William Scott
>implying we aren't being invaded by alt-right literal children
Cameron Jones
It is your mind that they want you to surrender — all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or of your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: “It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others” — end up by saying: “It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others.”
Now there is one word — a single word — which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand — the word: “Why?” Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it — and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given.
It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been called upon to justify it — or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. What most moralists—and few of their victims — realize is that reason and altruism are incompatible.
>PLAYBOY: Has religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life? >RAND: No
James James
all politicians must hang
Christopher Phillips
...
Henry Lewis
Touche
Jack Foster
Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?
The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is: No, the takers are not evil, provided they did not earn the value you gave them. It is not immoral for them to accept it, provided they are unable to produce it, unable to deserve it, unable to give you any value in return. It is not immoral for them to enjoy it, provided they do not obtain it by right.
Such is the secret core of your creed, the other half of your double standard: it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others — it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others — it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch — it is the parasites who are the moral justification for the existence of the producers, but the existence of the parasites is an end in itself — it is evil to profit by achievement, but good to profit by sacrifice — it is evil to create your own happiness, but good to enjoy it at the price of the blood of others.
Dominic King
she looks so fucking pissed off
Alexander Hernandez
cont.
Your code divides mankind into two castes and commands them to live by opposite rules: those who may desire anything and those who may desire nothing, the chosen and the damned, the riders and the carriers, the eaters and the eaten. What standard determines your caste? What passkey admits you to the moral elite? The passkey is lack of value.
Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don’t lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind.
If you succeed, any man who fails is your master; if you fail, any man who succeeds is your serf. Whether your failure is just or not, whether your wishes are rational or not, whether your misfortune is undeserved or the result of your vices, it is misfortune that gives you a right to rewards. It is pain, regardless of its nature or cause, pain as a primary absolute, that gives you a mortgage on all of existence.
If you heal your pain by your own effort, you receive no moral credit: your code regards it scornfully as an act of self-interest. Whatever value you seek to acquire, be it wealth or food or love or rights, if you acquire it by means of your virtue, your code does not regard it as a moral acquisition: you occasion no loss to anyone, it is a trade, not alms; a payment, not a sacrifice. The deserved belongs in the selfish, commercial realm of mutual profit; it is only the undeserved that calls for that moral transaction which consists of profit to one at the price of disaster to the other. To demand rewards for your virtue is selfish and immoral; it is your lack of virtue that transforms your demand into a moral right.
Connor Lewis
>kiniro mosiac >not alt right
Alice and Karen hate you.
Christopher Kelly
>Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? Because self-sacrifice and restraint was the core of civilisation
Next please, kike
Blake Price
No you civimong
Carson Perry
cont.
A morality that holds need as a claim, holds emptiness — non-existence — as its standard of value; it rewards an absence, a defect: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw — the zero.
Austin Reyes
*hang out in their secret globalist club house
Jason Bailey
THE ABSOLUTE STATE of this Sky stream.
Owen Anderson
Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value.
Adrian Young
>Those empty streets in DC
lel
Michael Turner
They have to cut off to a new camera every time someone starts talking because they've accidentally picked up "Fucking" twice
Nolan Young
it seems I have no other choice then
Tyler Morgan
>not being a free market nationalist
Elijah Johnson
(deletes internally)
Dominic Kelly
{What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Why would I read on when she begins with a nonsensical and obviously biased premise? Face it, she's a hack that barely deserves remembrance. Shove her tomes in a musty cellar and lock the door.
Ayden Jenkins
>“But it’s a big step to say the UK electorate as a whole is fundamentally rejecting capitalism or globalisation. It isn’t.
They should have made it clear that a vote for Brexit was a vote against capitalism desu.
>Implying the most lightweight conservatism can work with the free market in Britain, let alone nationalism
Ryder Butler
>free market >nationalist
Nolan Watson
Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that concern with one’s own interests is evil means that man’s desire to live is evil — that man’s life, as such, is evil. No doctrine could be more evil than that.
Yet that is the meaning of altruism.
Kayden Turner
>libertarians support ayn rand
wow you sure got us bro
Xavier Rogers
F
Nolan Harris
we dropping Rand bombs now?
>Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority—but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority.
