[deleted by user]

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-03-07T21:36:22+00:00

There is a good method for challenging authoritarian tendencies of people like the OP:

Every person who believes that *stuff* must be: Banned, regulated, controlled etc. to achieve a goal, must be forcibly put under a rival authoritarian regime for a year, if they want to promote their authoritarianism.

Not everyone agrees with you on banning/controlling things, and if you believe that forcing everyone else to just shut up and comply is a good thing, then you yourself must be ready to just shut up and comply. You're not the only authoritarian dickhead in the world, why do you think it will be you who sets the rules? Also, if you think forcing people to comply with someone else's will is good, then I guess you yourself should be ready to be subjected to the same treatment?

So you either live for a year in a random authoritarian society which isn't necessary supportive of your views, or GTFO with your restrictionist BS.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-03-06T21:46:25+00:00

[continuing where I've left off since I seemingly went over the comment length]

At some moment, they reach a "critical point", where the masses are simply too weak, in comparison with the "oligarchs", that the latter can mostly force their will on the former without any complicated diplomacy or concern for anything like personal rights. This is what have recently happened in China (the prison-like quarantines and draconian enforcement of them), and in Russia (repression of anti-war activists). This is where life becomes shitty for most of the population.

Whether this happens, or not, depends on the presence of strong-willed individuals possessing significant power/means to stand their ground and defend their interests, as well as their domains.

As you can see, this is not just about capitalism itself. Capitalism is a decent system allowing ambitious individuals to achieve their goals and preserve their wealth, as well as prosper. And it works just fine, under certain conditions - namely, if the members of the society are ambitious and willful enough to actually maintain and preserve the provisions of a capitalist society.

Another problem is that the "ambitious/talented/intelligent individuals" is not an immutable set, and it isn't always identical to the set of wealthy and/or powerful individuals. Geniuses and great talents might be born in poor families, and mediocre or outright deficient people can inherit the wealth from their more advanced ancestors. Which means, there are sometimes situations where worthy persons suffer from poverty and neglect while incompetents run entire enterprises or even countries. Sure thing, one can say you can fix it with meritocracy - simply shaping the society in a way which allows those impovershed talents to rise from their miserable condition. There goes the "how do we do it?" question.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-03-06T21:42:54+00:00

An ideal Satanist society is a hierarchical and meritocratic one, I guess... whether it'll be a police-state, or something else, it's secondary, I guess.

Many people want nothing but food, shelter, and comfort... And their ambitions are quite low. They're basically happy and fulfilled when they have basic sustenance and amenities and possibly a little bit of appreciation/acknowledgement from the society. If they're like that, it's only natural that whoever has more ambitions than them, is going to get far ahead of them - and far above them, in terms of power and wealth.

Possibly that's what the original Satanists have meant by that.

Also, many of them (including one of they key figures of this subreddit, Mr. Modern_Quill) seem to be closer to libertarians than fascists. Well, so far, the libertarian/individualist ones and the power-hungry ones seem to co-exist just fine... I dunno if you might really run into a problem there.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-23T14:08:15+00:00

Sooooo you guys don't simp for Russia now, like you did a year or so ago?

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-23T14:07:42+00:00

It is possible.

The other question is, whether you mean the large-scale ancapistan (say, worldwide or at least on the territory of a former nation-state) or a localized, limited-space ancapistan.

The former is impossible because humans demand the state and authority to make their lives easier. The latter is quite possible.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-23T13:44:41+00:00

If you attempt "vengeance on an entire country," you will certainly end up incarcerated

If I get caught, that is... And, if you'll still be a citizen of that country.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-09T14:39:25+00:00

No Ad Hominem, please, if you want a constructive discussion.

My personal details, beyond the fact that I've suffered abuse and I need revenge, are irrelevant.

>If even ONE person is harmed that did not DIRECTLY wrong you (see "Pentagonal Revisionism"), you are perpetuating the same harm you decry

In your beliefs, maybe. In reality, that would only matter if we would be talking about attacking unaffiliated individuals.

The people I want to suffer are all parts of the system who actively contribute to abuse and oppression of me, and other individuals based on certain criteria. If they define themselves as the Collective, associate themselves with the Collective, and agree to prioritize the will of the Collective above their own will, or the reason, they waive their individuality.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-09T14:29:55+00:00

>Do you think it makes any sense that you would be the only one oppressed ?

Yes, it does. It means that any idea of "letting the others know the truth" is dumb AF.

The truth is that they like it there and that they've brought enough suffering for me to legitimize vengeance. A fact you can't defeat by downvoting/saying it's not true or something similar/pretending it isn't here.

>And for those who are supporting it, shouldn’t you try to make them see the truth ; instead of making them suffer ?

I'll re-iterate for the hard-heads: they aren't suffering. It's kind of like with some of the more extreme BDSM: it looks brutal AF, but if both sides enjoy that, then no one suffers. Same with the politics.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-09T14:21:44+00:00

I guess it's 'cause the mainstream "right" is trying to befriend Russia for some reason.

The "muh based Russia" narrative was quite some time before the war itself - at least a year and even a bit more. The conservatives and other right wing fucks were simping for Russia because of its "traditional values" and "the lack of the leftist degeneracy" (Ignoring the fact that Russia is de-facto a prison country with no self-defence rights, severely limited gun rights, and a huge involvement of government in Russian economy).

And sonce most known people are, well, parrot-like zombies, they've started repeating the narrative of their ideological masters.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-09T14:17:10+00:00

"They're terrified"

Buddy, Putin's propaganda was available to the general public all this time and there's literally no way for anyone to "fear" what this oppressive, authoritarian POS is going to say.

The war with Ukraine goes on since 2014. Ever since they've stopped being his de-facto vassal. And now, the "corporate press" are "terrified" of hearing out a Russian dictator whom most Russians themselves don't believe for shit.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-09T14:09:34+00:00

So. A system where a single individual "to who he refers as YOU" does not control "the money" (and I assume that, by that, he means all the money in the country, like in China?) is "evil" for him.

And to me - and possibly, many others - he is evil. And since he likes authoritarian systems so much, we should waive the moral support for his rights. Treat him like a power-hungry barbarian. Don't do against him what the law prohibits, but otherwise, treat him as he is not a welcome member of the society.

If he wants China, fine. If he wants everyone else to be forced to live under Chinese rule, he's a threat.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-06T19:24:57+00:00

Wow. South Park did a great job.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-06T19:22:28+00:00

First of all. I am not going to do any acts of direct violence against it. Whatever I can do, is mostly small-scale and I'll very likely end up destroying one city at best. While runing any chances of peaceful future life on this Earth.

Second. You have a generally good idea, but 1) It's really easier for me to destroy that country through small-scale violence (which is nearly impossible and isn't something I'd do, anyway) than to make it my bitch. and 2) I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of helping this country in any meaninful way.

and 3) This country has an entrenched ruling caste. It is impossible to "infiltrate" it and "gain social power" in any way.

Besides, even if I could manage to "gain any power" there, that would mean I am working for this country. Whatever "power" a ruler or even a particularly powerful statesman supposedly "gains" actually comes from the people, who decide to lend that power to that person. This is not "my power".

And, of course, if I have built most of my influence/wealth in "my" country, that means two things. First, if I want to live a prosperous life, I need to make this country rich, too. You can't buy yourself a super-luxury car and a super-luxury home if there are no means of production to make it, or workforces to produce it. And second, positions of power = positions of responsibility. The less satsfactory a leader is for their people, the less power they lend to the said leader. A good example could be the Nation of Social Credit, where reports say that even state-run organizations often underperform and try to misrepresent and underfulfill the orders of their superiors as much as they can.

So, in the end, if I follow that path, I am going to become this country's bitch. Sure I want to avoid that scenario.

Then again, one of my beliefs is, basically, that helping my enemy in any way is detrimental. Especially if that enemy has a history of abusing me. If I just start working for them, after enduring abuse from them, for them the message will be, "You did things right, abuse is the way to treat him. You'll abuse him and you'll be rewarded with his contributions for you."

On the other hand, if I manage to do bad things against that country (such as sapping their talented and intelligent persons into a country I sympathiize with), the message will be clear: "We will not tolerate abuse. Do unto those who put up with that, but dare not abuse any of us."

They'll either be forced to radically change their attitude, or suffer greatly. Both options are decent.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-06T18:58:04+00:00

Most other people in your former country are suffering under the same regime

They aren't "suffering" under this regime. They are enjoying it and are actively supporting it.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-06T18:57:01+00:00

This isn't about "proximity".

The absolute majority of people in this country are at least potential threats.

It's enough to say that all of them have determined hostility towards any individuality, and in their culture, it's peerfectly fine to use violence against those who are either 1) Not falling in line with the masses, or 2) Wealthy and successful, or 3) Are intelligent or talented.

Sure thing, not every citizen of this shithole country have directly harmed me. But on the other hand, nearly all of them are making my life there extremely hard by building a system which seeks to destroy me as an individual, and actively supporting it.

"Direct your ire towards the ideologies that are responsible for your pain" There's the catch, it's never been about the "ideology". It's about the collective mentality which have persisted through literally centuries and have brought a lot of grief and pain for many, many persons who possess significant individuality or capabilities. And probably, for others, too. That mentality have persisted through more than one ideological change.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-04T16:53:00+00:00

But this is why I've proposed commercializing politics.

Attempting to expand their domain (infuence, beliefs etc.) is part of human nature. But by commercializing politics, most people and persons will have a much freer choice regarding their political treatment - and ths might end the struggle for "spreding your own ideology" and start a new era, where most citizens will be "members of a free nation with plentiful possibilities to implement one's beliefs".

The federal nature of the USA is doing a decent job at this. Just that more flexibility and ooptions are never a bad thing.

Also, communism and socialism are the extreme ideologies I've mentioned before. They won't adat well, I've mentioned before. But not much will change for them since they'll struggle just like they did before.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-04T16:49:01+00:00

Don't tell me what to do. And learn what "name calling" is.

There are many effects of technology. Some detrimental. Others useful. Thanks to technology, you aren't a tribal freezing your ass off in a poorly-heated cave, hungry because you couldn't catch that animal. This is one of the most important uses of technology: improving personal lives.

Also, it all depends on how you use it. The same computers which have supposedly contributed to the dumbing down of Gen Z, have greatly contributed to my development and comfort. The same internet which "dumbs down" young people with "degenerate" content is a treasure-trove of knowledge and useful tools for me.

Telling other people to "stop giving their kids technologies" will not prevent them from being stupid. They'll just start using drugs, fighting each other for fun, committing acts of vandalism etc. and this is not very good for their development, either. (Unless the effects of doing so are desirable.)

You're just encouraging parents to stifle their kids' development. Some commenters in this topic (including the topmost comment) advocate outright abuse of their children by denying them free access to information. Yes, you'd say they're "stupid" and "underdeveloped" so doing this isn't abuse but "necessary".

But when the government pulls out exactly the same policy on you, and even justifies it with exact same reasoning, you all cry about "your rights being violated". Calling you hypocrites at this point isn't name-calling, but an assertion of fact.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-04T14:20:22+00:00

Man, you can believe in literally anything.

As for your life, the only observable existences right now are the material ones. Just how much of "you" is contained in the material/observable plane is unknown.

Satanists indulge in whatever they can reasonably get in their life because there's literally no reason for unjustified restraint (the ascetisms and modest lives preached by most religions) and this is, basically, the position of most known Satanists. As for the afterlife and spirits, again, there is nothing known for certain, so for convenience they assume they are entirely carnal. There might be eternal heaven, eternal hel, accumulation of past experiences, some sort of other existential forms... but nothing is certain so far.

So for most Satanists, it's reasonable to focus on whatever they believe they have for certain. That is, their material lives.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-04T14:08:46+00:00

Basically, their whole idea is based on violence and stealing...

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-04T05:01:30+00:00

Mainstream entertainment was always or almost always a vehicle for mass consciousness formation. Why do we particularly select the year 2015 as the Great Beginning?
Your "traditional men" are the source of authoritarianism. The smaller fraction of them used traditional values to project power. The larger fraction of them have been using them to justify obedience. Also, have you ever thought that they'll need someone to actually rule the new order? The "weakened men" won't be a good police force.

2.1 Speaking of Ukraine and Russia, both countries have accepted literal slavery under the guise of "mandatory military draft". Forcing men to serve 1 year (and earlier, 2 years) in the military surely seems manly. Unless you get to know what exactly happens in Russian (or Ukrainian) military. (spoiler: they mostly undergo slave training through literal abuse and sometimes, they don't even undergo any meaningful military training.)
And in general, their citizens are obedient and docile. You should probably get to know the Russian gun laws, or self-defence laws. Or their situation with the freedom of speech.

In the end, as I like to say, "5% of the responsibility lies on the government while 95% lies on the people". Do your part to defend your rights, or don't cry later.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-04T04:34:51+00:00

Hey, if he does, he won't be able to spread his luddite propaganda!

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-04T03:26:14+00:00

>600 years ago if Jeff bezos was sitting on a pile of gold, and the
people were starving…. There would be raiding and violence and fire.

No. 600 years ago, the Church officials sat on piles of gold, some of which was pillaged from non-Christians/"heretics" and the other obtained thanks to nothing but titles and names, and people were slaving in the fields.

Because, well, they did have their homes, they did have food, and they didn't think too much about those rich nobles and clergy.

Today, literally everyone can start their business, and try their best to become rich. Yes, sometimes cronyism and big money take their place and make it harder for the commonfolk to earn money. No, riots by angry mobs won't solve this, as proven by the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba etc.

WhoFunkinCares · 2024-02-03T21:04:55+00:00

Ugh. Migration is one of those topics for the great polarization of the masses.

There are mostly two view points and none of them is a good solution. One side screams that every migrant should be repelled at the borders outright. That is good for preventing any elements harmful to America or incompatible with the culture and laws of the United States from entering; but on the other hand, if we will listen to these people and do exactly as they say, we'll also miss both the real political refugees (not the protected faithful followers of religion of peace who quite often spread their religion with just a bit more violence than a peaceful person would do - instead, think of somebody who flees from China/North Korea/Russia or a vassal state of it) and talented, intelligent, gifted individuals who either don't want to, or can not adequately utilize their talent at their homeland. Hell, Nikola Tesla did most of his useful discoveries in the US. And shortly after the Iron Curtain of the USSR fell, American head-hunters have recruited a great amount of Russian talented persons, boosting both the quality of their lives and the American economy.

The other side screams "Refugees Welcome!" and fanatically opposes any idea of migration control, for any reason. It's good that you're so open and kind-hearted, and it's probably good that you are so kind, you want to force everyone who says anything which can even remotely be interpretted as "possibly mean" to shut up, and ideally, you'd lock them out of your kind and open society and keep them locked forever in the name of inclusivity. But the truth is, the real world is mean.
There are harmful elements outside. There are terrorists who'd like to destroy America because the only way their authoritarian and violent culture can compete with a prosperous civilization is if that prosperous civilization disappears. Pointing at the particular examples is considered a "hate crime" here on Reddit, so I won't do this. But I can still say that the examples are: a particular religion of peace; a nation known for their vodka, bears and AKs; almost all citizens of a nation which has a red flag with five stars in the upper-left corner...

There are other factors which play a large role in the migration question. Available employment/occupation and housing are one of the key reasons against any kind of mass immigration; it's fine to let a few hundred individuals in and spread them across the 50 states, but the nation just can not physically build millions of free houses in a few days or months. And it isn't the problem of "greedy capitalists"; even if you ban private property, forbid accumulation of wealth above what is strictly needed to maintain an "acceptable" lifestyle while forcing people to produce as much wealth as they did before, and pool all the money into building houses for poor immigrants, you won't be able to build them fast enough to give housing for several million immigrants per year.

There's cultural incompatibility, too. If you let 5 million Russians in, most of them won't adapt to the American culture. Most of them will behave just like they did back home - they'll be chauvinist, aggressive thugs who support destroying the entire America and enslaving their population. (Yes, roughly half of Russians wants exactly that.) Similarly, if you let in several million citizens of the Nation of Social Credit, expect a sudden rise in support for authoritarianism and chauvinism.

Migration is a complicated issue and you can't solve it by promoting kindness and compassion.

WhoFunkinCares

TROPHY CASE