How do we remove the far-left and far-right from existence? The far-left can go first

How do we remove the far-left and far-right from existence? The far-left can go first.

Other urls found in this thread:

yournewswire.com/democrat-elite-pedophile-ring-guilty/
casualient.com/WNU
nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/on-the-origin-of-the-word-racist/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Education for everyone.

Well, it's too bad that colleges (especially the most esteemed ones) are now pandering to this mentality.

Just prove radical ideals don't work. Far left: USSR. Take Marxism/Communism, an idea that everyone is entitled to live freely and equally without the oppression of an economy or major government getting in the way and where people decide solutions together and everything is shared communally. Sounds pretty nice, everything wonderful about a children's book becomes a reality. However it comes with the price of either a revolution or a natural progression (whichever comes first) to get there. Now take a political group who reads this stuff, and feels inspired. They tinker around with the revolutionary aspect and class struggle and give us Marxism-Leninism. Now this group decides to stage a revolution to make this place a reality. But what do they do? They introduce a leader with style, charisma, and skill. This guy makes lots of promises, but he then promptly throws out all the storybook stuff, and starts killing everyone, even the revolutionaries his people fought along side. All of it is layed to waste and his new empire is forged in blood and suffering, threatening the very existence of humanity with radioactive holocaust. Why? Because Marxism is too flimsy, there are no failsafes, no concrete and sound ways of implementing or keeping the society together, and it fails to take into account human greed. It's a noble idea, yet is incredibly unrealistic and dubiously prone to exploitation. So, it can't work.

Far Right: Anarcho-Capitalism
Let's start by saying other anarchist groups reject these guys to begin with. The overall goal of Anarcho-Capitalism is to create a free society not susceptible to the blunders and wills of an oppressive or incompetent state. A place where you are allowed to live freely as an individual and unhindered by having to provide for other people even when you can't afford to, or subject to unjustified taxation. Instead, everyone can live their own paradise unbound by a government and achieve progress with the market.
Cont

Extremist SJW's aren't far left. They're actually closer to centrists in that their left opinions lead them to right conclusions. Far left is actually the only defensible position.

>However it comes with the price of either a revolution or a natural progression (whichever comes first) to get there.
As opposed to the thousand fold suffering and deaths of keeping the status quo? When weighing the two options on a moral scale, a revolution for good is far better than obligation to oppression for evil.

Funny how one person has the power to just remove it like that, even though thousands wanted it to remain.

However, because government is decentralized, such a system is prone to lawlessness. Civil and legal issues would have to be covered by privately owned institutions and would have varying degrees of legal imbalance with the added problems of compliance and corruption. Furthermore, you can effectively sell your own children and the market would be overcrowded with corporate conglomerates completely unbound from liability. Overall such a society would be a fast-paced trainwreck of exploitation, crime, pollution, and corporate dominance ruling over the lower class. Such a society has yet to exist, as perhaps the implications are too unsavory for most. The best systems are mixed economies far from the corners of either side and have a tolerable balance between authoritarianism and freedom.

Communism isn't even far left. It's merely a reasonable position based on the fact that capitalism is inherently untrustworthy where the consideration of profit at a cost of life and is unsustainable without growth and growth is physically unsustainable. It's also absolutely incompatible with the concepts of digitization and automation.
Effectively, capitalism cannot scale in a way that produces any good outcome when presented extreme economic variables and it does marginal good where there's relatively good conditions for it.

Calm your shit,
In that sentence I'm only providing a condensed description of Marx's idea of how we would theoretically attain Communism.

It's as left as it gets, Socialism without money.

Yeah no. Far left is just as much an authoritative bunch of cocksuckers as the far right. SJW tend toward fascism in actual practice, under the guise of equality.

You needed to keep reading Skippy. The revolution leads to a bloody, brutal authoritarian regime under the far left just like the far right would too.
Killing for the "greater good" is a lie to yourself to make yourself feel better and justified with your extremism. You're still a murderer, i.e. still a piece of shit.

I'm not saying you aren't giving a condensed description. But you're implying that's why communism doesn't work which is incorrect.

That's like saying we have to have slaves because stopping slavery would have a war that kills millions of people. Which is pretty fucking analog to situation here.

While everyone "abhors" the idea of killing, notice how few will go and defend racist slavers of the civil war. In this case, no one would care about evil class slavers a hundred years off except when they have to fucking cry about it because the concept of killing is bad despite the millions of years that killing was required to feed the entire population of basically every living thing on earth except us. Except now there's an option that takes a huge amount of negligence killings and outright immoral behavior off the table by killing despicable people who enjoy and thrive on needless human suffering.

>Killing for the "greater good" is a lie to yourself to make yourself feel better and justified with your extremism.

Ah, so that's why murdering someone in self defense is abhorent. Oh wait, you're full of shit.

Lmao fucking tranny faggots.

Let me clarify: I mentioned the revolution to say that it takes a lot of work to get there. That isn't meant to be a criticism, I just didn't have enough room to fit that in. It was added as a general characteristic to help lead into my next point of Soviet interpretation.

Wow.
Can't tell if you're retarded or just have your head buried so far up your own ass from being a far left polesmoker that you actually think communism is viable and good.
Bravo - but either way, your fucking stupid and wrong. You aren't an actor in Hollywood by any chance? You seem that level of stupid.

Nice strawman there, sport.
Also, "murdering" in self defense is fine.
Ya see, the attacker has already made a decision to forego the laws of civilization by attempting to, or actually, harming you with the possible outcome of your death.
So, when someone comes to beat the everloving piss out of you in order to snuff out your candle, you have a right to use lethal force in order to stop them, since you weren't the one breaking the law to begin with.
Faggot.

>Except now there's an option that takes a huge amount of negligence killings and outright immoral behavior off the table by killing despicable people who enjoy and thrive on needless human suffering.
And who decides what's moral? Who decides who's suffering from whatever action? Yeah, you're rhetoric is how extremism justifies itself as a moral authority which is just as fucking evil as the ones they are killing.
Congrats on being a hypocrite.
Lemme guess, you normally vote red or blue don't you.

By your argument it's not a strawman.

Oh yes, yes it is.
Strawman. Noun.
1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
You used the talk of self defense as the strawman in order to try to bolster your lack of actual argument why you aren't a piece of shit by murdering people who don't agree with your ideologies all in the name of revolution.
We on the same page now?

>And who decides what's moral?
I'm going with non sadists. But sure, go ahead and redefine morality as torturing the fuck out of people and oppressing them.
Whose to say slavery is immoral? Who really can say human slavery is wrong. No one. The SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN, YIP YEEHAW FUCK NIGGERS AND DEM HYPOCRIT YANKEES! Morality is defined as whatever we beat people into agreeing it is.

Nope, you keep saying the argument as it is and then saying it's a straw-man when you've represented the argument exactly as it was which is not a strawman. So no.

Wring in so many ways modern day far left are retardedly hypocritical. Intolerant of other ideologies. Hurt free speech by labling anything offensive as hate speech (Just look at the fucking retarded laws in canada that threaten criminal offense when "misgendering" someone BOO FUCKING HOO first time in history you can be detained for NOT using what is deemed correct speech.

The fact that they claim to be about love not hate and inclusion but they blame whites and straight people side with retarded radical feminism so men and patriarchy are evil. They claim to be against racism but every white person is a priviledged oppressor. and fucking christ don't tell me the regressive far left don't follow allot of those tenents. They are who got trump elected and they are the BIGGEST idealistic hypocrites who call others sheep but are the biggest sheep themselves.

Look at my picture it is the classic far left wanting to SILENCE people who disagree with them cause its "hate speech" Like antifa they call others fascist then use fascist tactics like trying to shut down freedom of assembly and shout down free speech when they disagree with the speaker often resorting to violence TEXTBOOK FASCISM!

>spouts hypocrisy trying to attack hypocrisy

Well, considering some 30 or so million slaves exist today in various countries - some legally in those countries including the US - who's to say it's not moral by those living in those countries.
Morality isn't black and white like you're making it out to be, and it's decided upon by whomever the victor is - and it still makes you a piece of shit for going around murdering people because they don't share your viewpoints, even if you are victorious.

> and it still makes you a piece of shit for going around murdering people because they don't share your viewpoints, even if you are victorious.
Hey now morality isn't black and white like you're making it out to be, and it's decided upon by whomever the victor is

>How do we remove the far-left and far-right from existence?
We can't. Why?
Reason 1: Someone will always be on the fringe of what is the Right and the Left.
If you take Nazis and Communists away, you have Nationalists and Socialists. If you take them away, too, you have Social Democrats and Conservatives. And so on.

Reason 2: Someone will always be radical. Someone will always be willing to go extremist. Someone will always become a militant.

Reason 3: Those views that can be counted as far-left and far-right today, that is NS, Fascism, religious Authoritarianism, Socialism-Communism, Anarchism, and other, more esoteric stuff, are results of the current modi of social, cultural, technical, economic etc. life and will only go away (or change) in a society very different from ours (e.g. there was no NS a thousand years ago).

Sorry but no. Your attempt to deflect by introducing self defense justifiable homicides as a way to somehow justifying slaughtering people in the name of violent revolution isn't really a way to justify you murdering people for a cause or prove you're not a shitbag for doing so.

>Your attempt to deflect by introducing self defense justifiable homicides as a way to somehow justifying slaughtering people in the name of violent revolution isn't really a way to justify you murdering people for a cause or prove you're not a shitbag for doing so.
Morality isn't black and white like you're making it out to be, and it's decided upon by whomever the victor is

>conservatives aren't nationalist nazis

Completely agree with you I mean what kind of naive quixotic moron actually believes capitalism is a viable option. Go to cuba if it is so great, not to mention any nation that has tried it see's crippling decline and a low quality of life.

You fucking idiots reap the treasures of capitalism ;Luxeries even the poor in america have it better than the middle class in most other nations. You sit there on your Ipad your cellphone and computers. You go for fast food and a plethora of other goodies, activities, hobbies all made possible by innovation the free market entrepreneurship and you guessed it CAPITALISM name me any other nation where a man (my father) can grow up working in the fields and now owns his own business, makes good money and has a three story house worth about 1.1 million dollars. Capitalism baby. Is it perfect and does everyone get everything they want NOOOO but welcome to real life you fucking child. Grow the fuck up and one day you'll find out all your dumbass half baked ideas aren't supported by intelligent people for a reason. Ever wonder why communist and socialist people are all out of work college aged idiots who usually have no job and aren't the brightest.

Jesus educate yourself

Murder - internationally - is illegal. It's an agreed upon moral by the majority of almost everyone and as such, became law - don't murder your fellow citizens.
Now, there are some people, like you, that think murder is fine as long as it has some lofty goal of change. It's still murder. You're still in the minority about it being moral, and you're not in the legal right anywhere in the world to begin a murderous revolution for your cause.
But keep trying skippy - see if you can justify your desire to murder people for a change to communism like you initially argued for.

So?

Go back to Sup Forums you whiny little manchild. Did the special little snowflake get their feelings hurt? Boooo fucking hoo.

>Nazis
>far right
No

Well, guess we know you have no argument and are in fact, autistically retarded.
Good job shitbag.

wow it's like you really believe capitalism thrives off people murdering slave workers to make any typse of profit

Me and my family own a business we create jobs and with the HUGE amount of worker protection our workers get treated extremely well. STOP acting like working in america and having capitalism is EVILL AND DESPICABLE! believe it or not MOST businesses are like my families creating jobs working our asses from the ground up to grow our business and YES we fucking deserve the profits because without us creating innovation and putting our own money into it those jobs wouldn't exist so YES we DO deserve a vast majority of the profits. That's only fair, I didn't see any of our workers putting millions in capital for years to get it up and running so what makes you entitled to so much of the growth now? It's your generation of entitlement. Also read my post here

see: modern society

>Remove the far right
How gay are you?

>. It's an agreed upon moral by the majority of almost everyone and as such, became law - don't murder your fellow citizens.
Except when it isn't. Like times of war or when corporations do it.
But at least it's unacceptable during times of war so long as the person winning the war gets to defend their status quo.

Hey, you want to argue that morality is undefinable except when it's defineable and also when it agrees with you, but also undefineable. Don't want stupid responses don't make posts that are defeated by your own stupid quotes.

Yes it is a strawman you fucking retarded cunt.

You are claiming murdering in self defense is justified I AGREE

It ISN"T self defense to try and take down or even get rid of people running our economy or our system of capitalism in some half baked communist utopian dream only a child could believe.

That is known as a FALSE EQUIVALENCY! trying to compare it to self defense is completely retarded and not at ALL comparable

Ah, yes my generation of working more hours, harder, and less pay for half as much entitlement. Which in actuality you don't even know which generation I belong to.

nothing gayer than the far right, it usually just has closeted gays who molest and rape little boys or has child porn and pretyends to be manly so basically nothing wrong with getting rid of it

that picture is the dumbest thing I have ever read in my entire life.

the american "far left" and the "far right" are barely distinct from each other on the scale of world politics and global history.

The general trend in america has been a gradual shift to the left. today's "far right" is generally indistinguishable from JFK era democrats. Don't believe me? take a look at the entitlement budget. JFK preached personal responsibility and serving the public. Obama preached "you didn't build that" and the largest entitlement since the New Deal in the 30s

Justifiable homicides is not murder, and murder isn't justifiable homicides.
They both have legal definitions - acts of war allow for justifiable homicides. You can however still be convicted of murder during a war by attacking and killing non-enemy combatants aka civilians. This is why war crimes are a thing, moron.
Also, name one corporation that is going around murdering people.

You're thinking of the american alt-right.

Seriously. The hard right has some serious self issues given that they have way more homosexuals than the left. And ironically the left would be totally supportive of the gay lifestyle they wish they were living if only they stopped hating themselves and trying to ruin life for everyone because of their self loathing.

I mean, really, republicans eat a cock, no literally, you want too and it's hurting you inside not doing it so just do it. We literally don't care that you want to bang your football bros and shit. It's fine with at least half the country and it'd be an overwhelming majority if you just came to terms with wanting some sausage in your mouths. Get it over with and quit projecting on society.

If you put the NS to the far left, my argument doesn't change.
If you put them on the moderate left, it doesn't change much.
If you put them in the centre, they'd be radical to extremist centrists and so the argument would hold, too.

the exact same percentage of closet gay pedos exist in the far right as in the far left and every other chunk of society. it's standard deviation. i assure you no political party has the corner of the market on deviants. believing that only republicans house closet pedos is the ultimate in childishness.

Alt-right is just meme spitting open version of the standard right. They only differ in presentation.

No, morality is very definable. I specifically asked by who's viewpoint is it a moral thing to go around killing people who don't agree with your ideologies.
The answer is it's the viewpoint of those who are wrong. Collectively, the majority of people do not condone murder committed for revolution because they follow the laws in place making said causes illegal.
Now, you show me one country that allows for bloody revolution in its actual daily laws and you'll win the disagreement.
>pro tip - I won't be waiting for an example because there are none

This, entirely.
Both sides are out of control authoritarians now, there is no real difference in both parties, regardless of how much they claim otherwise.

>it's standard deviation
It's not.

>assure you no political party has the corner of the market on deviants
Oh really? Show me all the far left Christian nuts at the same deviation. Oh wait. Two different demographics.

Population statistics account for the whole population but sub groups aren't all equal diverse in the same ways. The same way as you could make a sub group of non deviants vs deviants, it wouldn't magically make each one equal because 'standard deviation' based on population statistics. They're literally different groups.

They'll have different types of deviants in different magnitudes based statistically significant population variations.

>wants to remove far left
You're retarded.
The far left is comprised of:
>the KKK
>people that think profanity is bad

The far left is composed of:
>BLM
>Feminism
>ANTIFA
>Occupy [insert here]
>Transgender Mental Illness
>Forced Socialism
>Forced Communism

Remind me again OP...
How many riots have the KKK started in the last decade?
How many cars and businesses burned because of the KKK?
How many people have been mortally wounded by the KKK?
How many people undergo hormone therapy before reaching puberty because of the KKK?
How many highways have the KKK shut down?
How many cops have been attacked or killed because of the KKK?
How many shitty Ghostbuster reboots did the KKK catalyze?
How many schools, universities and businesses were blocked because of the KKK?

I'll wait here for the answer.

There's no evidence that the so-called alt-Right has more gays, pedophiles, and other deviants than other non-mainstream groups or the mainstream itself.
I'd argue that for a big part of the AR being officially kind of anti-gay, it might be even less than the average.

yournewswire.com/democrat-elite-pedophile-ring-guilty/
Just one such article showing Democrat politicians who are pedos.

Liberals need to believe anyone they don't like is less intelligent than them.

The reality...is different.

>pic related

it's already been proven to be true. I had a masters level class on sociology and epidemiology. roughly the same percentage of people are pedos if you take ANY chunk of 100,000 people. It doesn't matter if they are christian, hindu, black, white, conservative or liberal. There's no difference in magnitude. there may be slight arithmetic differences (say, 5 out of 100,000 vs. 10 out of 100,000) but there's no particular trend.

So i say again, show me some proof that the largest percentage of pedos exists in the american Tea Party, or drop it already.
>pro tip: you can't

By this: casualient.com/WNU

...

>alt right
>other non-mainstream

>I'd argue that for a big part of the AR being officially kind of anti-gay, it might be even less than the average.
Which is a terrible argument. Given how many outspoken anti-gays have been demonstrably gay and doing shit like caught sucking other dudes dicks. You know who are anti-gay, people afraid of becoming gay based on their sexual preferences. You know who aren't anti-gay, people not afraid of becoming gay based on their sexual preferences.

It's like alcoholics demonizing alcohol instead of realizing they themselves have issues not the alcohol. You don't see perfectly normal people demonizing alcohol, it's not exactly safe without moderation, but it's not the devil tempting you with sweet destruction.

It's called projection. They externalize their own fears and insecurities onto others as a way of hiding from their own demons.
No side has a clear corner on that.

>No side has a clear corner on that.
Pretty sure liberalism does.
But that's based on personal observation.

You're seeing the vocal minority - not the overall group.
Same way with bible thumping right wingers - vocal minority.

Far right to me would be actual literal fascists. I know that's a trigger word now since it gets thrown around a lot but people who talk about curtailing democracy, rewriting the US constitution, restricting specific citizens rights and vast government reach into personal life, that is what they are.

Yes, there are closet homosexuals who are outspoken anti-gay. And there will be some in the alt-right, too.
But the 99.99 percent who are not in the public eye have not much to gain being gay AND being in the alt-right.
I'd say that, given time, they will leave that movement (or did leave it already). Some will accomodate themselves and keep their homosexuality (or other behaviors frowned upon) a secret.

I'd argue that if there's no reason to believe that gay persons are to an unusual degree attracted to alt-right ideas, there will be less gays than in the mainstream, the left, moderate conservatism etc.

Nah, the standard right wasn't neo nazi even a year ago dude

You just described half of the GOP...

Why do you restrict everything to the KKK?

Ok, wait a second, you're saying that the far-right is pushing for "vast government reach into personal life"? You're kidding, right? Far-right movements are typically anti-govt.

Put the blame where it belongs: On the Baby Boomers and socialism. Entitlements are basically huge wealth transfer machines that shift money from the relatively young (Millennials, and also Gen X) to the old (Baby Boomers and the surviving older generations). And the escalating cost of these programs has dampened economic growth, which is why there are less opportunities.

There are other factors like the growth of automation, but they're small in comparison.

Which is why I am left. I prefer maximum personal liberty and while both sides have extremist authoritarians, the lefts tend to be more benign types that simply complain to corporate entities who then enact policies in their private businesses. The far right tends to want literally insane shit like "race injury" crimes and removal of state governments to set up specific states to segregate all minorities to.

One is obnoxious and largely can be ignored, and the other is a nightmare that will guarantee an eventual Venezuela

Clearly you have never talked to a "nat soccer" or really, anyone on the right. Fascism itself is traditionbally right wing socially in all ways. The left, at most, makes policy changes in private areas. Far different from the right wanting to set up laws governing which religion I may practice. The right have talked about spying on mosques, citizens, etc.

All you have with the far left is that you might get expelled from a private college because you couldn't hold your redpill and not scream NIGGER.

Also look at far right governments like those in Hungary and Poland, which are shitholes worse off than fucking shariah countries. Also note that Muslim authoritarian countries also practice mostly right wing ideology.

>One is obnoxious and largely can be ignored, and the other is a nightmare that will guarantee an eventual Venezuela
So you're arguing that Venezuela's problems were caused by the far right?

Wow.

commie faggot

there is no reason to remove the far right
intelligence is hereditary

lol, communism is just a bunch of jews taking over the means of production using the low tier of a nation to create unrest. no one wants communism if they are productive members of this world.

>Communism isn't even far left. It's merely a reasonable position based on the fact that capitalism is inherently untrustworthy
Jesus dude. What is even far left to you??

The word racist was made (in to a bad thing) by internationalist globalist jewish commies in order to destabilized a existing nation.

They do this to take over the means of production and gain control over the assets of set nation whilst being foreigners themselves.

In Charles Malato’s Philosophie de l’Anarchie (1897) we find both raciste and racisme:
No doubt that before arriving at complete internationalism, there will be a stage which will be racism;
but it must be hoped that the layover will not be too long, that it will be rapidly surpassed. Communism, which appears that it must inevitably be regulated at the beginning of its functioning,
especially in regard to international trade, will bring about the establishment of racist federations (Latin, Slavic, Germanic, etc.). Anarchy — which we can glimpse at the end of two or three generations when,
as a result of the development of production, any regulations will have become superfluous — will bring the end of racism and the advent of a humanity without borders.
nationalvanguard.org/2015/06/on-the-origin-of-the-word-racist/

Far left is now mid-right.

We're in political Wonderland.

How could this letter have been sent to Karl Marx when Karl Marx had been dead for 45 years? Are reactionaries so stupid that they can't fact-check?

>the far left is comprised of
>>the KKK
I know I am on Sup Forums but I expect a high level of intelligence

>nypost
>reactionary tabloid
ok

I know nothing about the tabloid or the specific topic, but the article cites the American Journal of Political Science, which has the highest impact factor of any journal in the field. So whether or not the paper is a great source of news, the cite is top tier and should be easy to verify.

Read some Jung. Jung nails humankind. There will always be a repressed rabble element within society and most individuals, even the 'good' ones. Only up to 40% of the population hold civilisation together. Aiming to rid the extreme elements just won't happen. Have a look at Brazil street murders where a community turn on one guy accused of eg stealing a $20 radio from someone's hovel - the mob forms and acts as one to kill the guy typically, and in the most base ways. And before western civilisation white folks would do the same to other white folks. We're all fucked, and at the mercy of state agents (who could get it wrong, and kill us anyways) to be protected from our neighbours. The rabble are only suppressed by the threat of concecquences from the state.

this send a chill down my spine.
honestly, the LGBT movement should have dissolved after achieving tolerance.
every step after was a direct violation of meritocratic principles.

lol, thats the date of the book not the date of the letter.
Shows that you lefties are retarded and burn up energy on useless stuff. you looked that meme up and solved the captcha with out realizing that there are not many letters with 574 pages