/lit/ - Literature

>fagwave
Not going to read your juvenile scrawling

>>16946954
>Giving an 80's cassette look to your traditionalist propaganda

>>16946979
>>16946983
Okay. What have you done for the white race, assuming you're not a non-white (which is probably a mistake).

>>16947002
Why would i care about this failed race that is causing it's own downfall?

>>16947031
I am of the opinion that those who have been corrupted by the Jews will cause their own destruction. When this is accomplished, the faithful remainder will build up from the ashes. Your question amounts to this: "If most other people are jumping off a cliff, why don't you follow them?" No thank you, I will remain and preserve myself and my family.

>>16947031
Currently trying to get over this one myself. I still feel a kind of vague duty but... realistically why shouldn't I just get a Japanese wife or something? Things are looking like they're past the point of salvaging.

>>16947081
You would feel more at home on Tumblr than on /lit/.

>>16947090
Tumblr is a haven for anti-white degenerates.

>>16947002
>What have you done for the white race
Fucking kek, roll on back to your sanatorium stormnigger.

>>16947082
Becoming a traitor because you are despairing over over the amount of traitors... Isn't that counter-intuitive?

>>16947108
>didn't read the essay
opinion discarded

>>16947114
I'm wondering why I would put my personal happiness at stake (for my one and only life) for what seems like a lost cause.

>>16947126
I already told you I wouldn't read it. I'm just here to mock you.

>>16947131
Being faithful to the white race means creating a white family and raising moral children who think similar to you. That's it. You don't have to say anything or do anything. Let the degenerate society burn and the white race will arise again from the survivors who saw the signs and prepared.

>>16946954
I skimmed your essay. You sound immature (as in actually a child) and to have a touch of the 'tism. Also, go back.

>>16946954
Don't click on this fagwave larp shit.

It's rehashed "natural law" philosophy that keeps trying to pop-up some sketchy website every 2 minutes.

Fuck off back to your safe space you 12 year old bitch.

>>16947142
Oh... okay. Do you have anything else to mock me with? Your other posts were pretty weak...

>>16947164
If you don't use adblocker you deserve shitty ads.

>>16947153
Look kid. All humans are shite. You could destroy every race on the planet save for one and things are still gonna be shit. All of your "redpills" and all of your statistics fail to hold up to even basic scrutiny. You stand within the modern day library of Alexandria and declare loudly that you will choose to remain ignorant. Deal with your biases. They're built upon shaky ground and serve to corrupt the whole of you.

>>16947153
>and the white race will arise again from the survivors who saw the signs and prepared
This is the part I doubt.

>>16946954
Have sex.

>>16947179
You didn't read the essay. If you did, you wouldn't have made that comment.

>>16947182
It only takes thirty people to safegaurd the essential genetics of the race. Look at South Africa, despite overwhelming persecution, the white race persists there. The idea is to create a nation within a nation after becoming a minority.

>>16946954
That's just shit, holy fuck. At least finish your undergrad degree before posting any drivel like this. Whatever that is it does not deserve to be called an "essay". This fucking board gets worse every year I swear.

>>16947002
It's ok OP, your propaganda looks good. Those are probably just seething leftoids.
>>16947031
Presumably because your fate is generally inextricable from that of your failed race.
>>16947082
You urgently need to read the Traditionalists (Evola in particular). DESU I also don't give a shit about normies anymore - not the way they are now, anyway. Still, to turn away from your values and destiny just because other people debase them is a form of self-betrayal. Ultimately, you will always know what's right. If you don't do that, you'll have to live your entire life knowing that you deliberately chose to do what is easy instead. That's difficult and undesirable in its own way.
>>16947153
Boring take desu.

>>16947201
Thank you but it isn't meant to be propagandistic fluff; it's meant to be an abstract outline of a justification for the existence of a tribe and the actions they must take to preserve themselves.

>>16946954
>The only relevant laws that govern the behavior of physical systems are the laws of motion, and since humans are physical systems, the only laws that govern human behavior are the laws of motion.
Did a teenager write this? Was he trying to cram as much dumb falsehood in one sentence as possible?

>Detractors from this viewpoint are invited to pick a fight with a speeding semi.
Yep, definitely under 17. Not wasting my time with this, read more and actually think. Start with newtonian physics above highschool level.

>>16947196
>>16947201
We'll see where life takes me, I suppose. It seems kind of silly to tell a decent, good partner to gtfo because I need to save the white race but. We'll see.

>>16946954
I read the whole shit. I felt like I was a 14 years old stormfag again. You need to;
>read books, you clearly haven't
>have sex
>mature. I am convinced that you are a child.

>>16947217
You forgot "relevant." In a discussion of human politics behavior or action in general, all that needs to be taken into account, within the context of the essay, are the laws of motion.

>>16947217
>the only laws that govern human behavior are the laws of motion
>Detractors from this viewpoint are invited to pick a fight with a speeding semi

>>16947217
Read it all, it only gets worse from there. This nigga was 100% in the special ed class.

>>16947228

>>16947165
You know when a circus rolls into town, and all the villagers rush out to gawk at the freak show full of deformed and grotesque people? This is a similar situation. I'm just here to peg an apple at the tard who has shown up.

>>16947212
I was talking about your image lol.
>>16947224
You can partner up with whomever you like as far as I am concerned. It's not like anyone can tell you what to do, anyway. Children though? Another topic. Make up your own mind. With all that said, crossing huge boundaries in your selection of a partner is generally difficult if both individuals have the trademark qualities of their peoples.

>>16946954
'defend the west'
lmao the west ended on September 2, 1945. it was a good run but it's all ogre now boyo.

>>16947159
In what way?

>>16947282
Demoralization means you haven't fully committed yet.

>>16947268
If I ended up with a non-white foreigner I'd just stay in their country to raise the kids. We all know how mixed race people tend to fare in the west. I don't have high hopes for Canada anyways. The idea of a small rural house in some (safe) non-western country is kind of alluring. Little /lit/ room, have a little garden. Cute Japanese(?) wife. Sounds nice brehs.

>>16947261
kek he's never coming back from that one

>>16947261

>>16947308
Your children won't look like you, they'll look like random asian kids. The idea of a white son, my son, turned me off from any possibility of race mixing.

>>16947326
yes but if they were surrounded by other Asian-y people then it wouldn't matter. It might even be a bonus for them to be taller and paler from what I gather.

>>16947261
no u

>>16947290
Meaning that you lack maturity: you make claim out of you ass with nothing to back them. You need to have some sort of autism to write that shit. And, if you weren't a newfag you wouldn't have posted this here.

>>16947347
Which claims were made without sufficient backing?

>>16947261

>>16947339

.
>>16947184
I did read half of your boring shit. It's nothing new. It's nothing concrete or unrefutable. It's simply some bullshit assertions you pulled from out of your ass with no citation or even a clear statement of any hypothesis to back it up.

"you cannot care about everyone in a world where zero-sum competition exists. That would lead to cognitive dissonance. Someone who has resisted the corruption of the modern world and still responds to these essential human motivations(in group bias) is a righteous man."

Why does it lead to cognitive dissonance? Why is one righteous if he trades reality for what you assert(without evidence)is a natural preference for "in-groups." What constitutes a meaningful in group in your larp world? Science has proven that in-group bias exists even in arbitrary groupings. It takes nothing to create these mystical powerful innate ingroups and once people know that their "category" is shallow and essentially meaningless, their preference tends to fade. In today's world race is simply one of these categories that the wide majority of people see as meaningless. I know you hate to hear that, but each successive generation is less and less racist. People are more likely to show group bias towards the type of shoes their wearing, the book club they belong to, or a shared interest in music.

Not to mention, your basic premise is probably something like "the white race is under attack." Or some other bullshit, and guess what. It's not. Sure, there's been some reckoning laty due to the history of violence and oppression carried out by our ancestors, but there aren't movements that want us destroyed. The reason you see anti-white sentiment in pro-inclusion media is because you've trained(read: brainwashed) yourself to. Even if biases are natural, your essay assumes that they are beneficial, when often times they simply aren't.

>>16947359
tranny leftist outed themselves, you were doing better being more subtle

>>16947353
Litterally the whole farce. Name three (3) books that you read that can back your essay.

>>16947376
Let my reasoning stand on its own, that is the only proper way to argue abstractly. I don't accept the authority of your 'books,' so why would I cite them?

>>16947228
Absolutely not. If you're talking about relevance about the fate of human societies the laws of motion are among the last thing you should care about. Unless you pretend you're able to compute or even vaguely assess the evolution of human society by applying Newton's laws to the bodies that constitute it. Just try it with a family of 3 over the course of an afternoon, that should give you an idea of what it is to actually struggle with physics.

Even if human societies were simple toy models for physicists (they aren't, even specialist of statistical physics have trouble dealing with them) you'd have to take into account not only the laws of motion but those of thermodynamics and electromagnetic and/or optics (depending on the space and time scales at which you're working). That's letting you getting scot-free with nuclear forces and assuming you can easily deduce all of chemistry just from the laws of electromagnetism (again, give it a try, see how you fare).

This is of course a retarded way to approach things because it completely neglects the scale at which relevant things are happening, and instead insists on reducing everything on the only kind of physical tool you have heard of in your life. But you can't just say "those laws apply almost universally therefore they also apply to my problem" and expect massively complex systems to nicely solve themselves for you. You have to put in the work, and with the way you're approaching things it'll take you the entire computing power available to mankind just to understand what happens when the drug store two blocks from your house unexpectedly closes in mid-afternoon.

You don't know this because you lack any experience of dealing with an actual scientific problem. Let me give you an example: I know several people working in scientific institutes and for consulting groups who spend a significant part of their life trying to model the behavior of economic indicators under assumptions (note how that's under assumption, and merely economic indicators, just a minute part of understanding the evolution of entire human societies).

Using advanced mathematical modelization, significant computing power and a lot of algorithmic optimization, those people usually take 3 to 6 months to simulate a single possible trajectory for the economy. Often they turn out to get it wrong on the medium term if not the short term.
You can bet those people know Newton's laws inside and out, in fact they were already toying with it before you discovered diapers.
But if you think you can do better than them with your retarded little reductionist framework (not a framework really, a posture), then go ahead.

Or you can choose to take this seriously, in which case we'll perhaps see you again in 20 years. Probably not, though.

>>16947233
Have to admit it's funny.

>>16947239
There's a limit to everything, even to my masochism.

>>16947387
too long didn't read fag

>>16947386
>litterally admitting being too illiterate to name three books to back his claims

>>16947393
The absolute gall.

>>16947364
Understand also, that I'm being charitable by not attacking your initial assertion that laws of motion govern human interaction. What a shallow way to say you are responsible for your actions. Yeah, no shit. It also stopped applying immediately, you just through it out their to make an appeal to Newtons authority. It's imbecilic, and I feel worse about my white skin and nationality after reading it.

>>16947393
I believe you read the beginning and it was enough for you to give up. Cowardice has its perks.

>>16947407
Go write a blog on reddit tranny, you missed the mark by so far it's not even worth explaining.

>>16947386

>>16947420
Good, traitors should live with the maximum amount of self-loathing.

>>16947428
Prove that you aren't 5'8 and barely 18. Nobody is impressed, "Heinrich". I bet your real name is Daniel lmao.

>>16947308
You sound a bit too attached to comfort and the small, emotional pleasures to really engage in dissident politics, but I suppose that there's lots of people like that and that every political movement needs them. Just keep your eyes open, I suppose. You should probably be able to get a wife the same race as you, anyway. With all that said, I do hope your comfy /lit/ dreams come true, fellow anon. I wish you happiness and joy in the coming decades.

>>16946954
I only skimmed this.
Why can't I just create a world government? This essay assumes that it is impossible to create a situation in the world where most of humanity succeeds? is there anything about the laws of physics that make the creation of a world government impossible? Furthermore, why care about your race instead of yourself and your own happiness?
t.non-white

>>16947453
>non-white
opinion discarded

>>16947437
You misunderstand, I don't loathe myself, I loathe the thing we share in common. My race. Now aplly this outward to society, and you'll begin to understand why you stormfags are only rushing to your own demise with your ethonocentric attitude. You're actually making enemies of the race you claim to care for. They aren't brainwashed. They aren't uninformed. They see what you see, and contextualize it on their own without brainwashing themselves with imageboard psyops meant to cause disunity. You guys are tools.

>>16947453
>Furthermore, why care about your race instead of yourself and your own happiness?
Why should those two be separate? Just because liberalism says so?
>t.non-white
What kind? I'm sure you're one of the good ones anyway, anon.

>>16947445
Thank you, Anon. I hope OP manages to have sex one day. I hope our /lit/ dreams can come true. I hope we all make it.

>>16947475
Sex outside of marriage is degeneracy.

>>16947481
Why? Why does a state certificate make something more or less degenerate?

>>16947481
>I'm an 18 year old virgin and I cope by posting my drivel on /lit/ and larping as a nazi
LMAO PLEASE TELL US MORE ABOUT YOURSELF

>>16947487
I don't mean the marriage contract from the state, I mean marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman with the intention to permanently pair-bond and (if possible) start a family.

>>16947470
Why focus on race instead of your shared happiness and humanity with all human beings. We have humanity in common with everyone, race in common only with a few.

>>16947503
This is why I want an IQ-State.

>>16947508
>tips fedora

>>16947498
Why can't you have sex for fun? What makes it degenerate?

>>16947459
Not an argument.
>>16947470
you're missing the point my question was why would it be immoral to follow your own happiness if the interest of your race conflicted with your own personal interest? It's not a comment on if this is actually the case.
>>16946954
>Furthermore, the laws of motion would permit the unfair action of raping a young child just as much as they would permit any fair action. So, if the laws that govern human behavior permit such unfair behavior without discrimination, then they are not fair.

You're humanizing the laws of physics fairness or unfairness is a quality we ascribe to men or their creations. This isn't applicable to the laws of physics otherwise you could also describe them as uncaring, or unjust (because they allow for the rape of children like in your example). I'm only a few sentences in and this doesn't look good OP...

>>16947467
Bro you really think that if "stormfags" disappear all the nations of the world will join hands and start singing kumbaya? Get real. I'm looking forward to seeing how you react to the coming chaos of the next two or three decades. I bet you'll simplistically blame it all on "stormfags", though.
>>16947475
Based, though I'm increasingly coming to suspect that OP might actually be trolling us all.

>>16947512
Promiscuity

>>16947511
THE ABSOLUTE GALL!!!

>>16947508
IQ is a pointless discretion also. It's highly variable and malleable as according to nearly all IQ studies. It also doesnt correleate very well with other admirable qualities.

Why not attempt to increase generational education, and improve communities socioeconomically to improve IQs of the whole. What about those who breed but their spawn dpesnt inherit their high IQ. It's only ab 50% heritable. Do they get removed from the society? What if one has a brain injury and is reduced to a lower IQ? Is he allowed to remain? What if your high IQ society leads to extreme increass in depressuon and suicide as they're often associated with high IQ.

>>16947514
unjust=unfair, your non-white IQ is showing

>>16947503
What you "focus on" is not the same as what is. Race always has, still does and always will exist - in one form or another, in a more articulate or less articulate state. It also carries profound meaning. I can immediately tell you about my shared history, values and traditions with my co-nationals. I can do the same with people within my race, but it gets progressively harder the farther I go. What about humanity? What does "humanity" share in common? Nothing really, nothing outside the biological category of being homo sapiens (and even this is something that certain people will dispute).
>>16947514
>you're missing the point my question was why would it be immoral to follow your own happiness if the interest of your race conflicted with your own personal interest? It's not a comment on if this is actually the case.
Oh fair enough, I don't care about morality and I'm not interested in defending moralfaggotry, regardless of the perspective it takes.

>>16947515
I didnt blame them for societies problems you shitwit. I said that ironically their interavtions with others only serve to distance them from their goak of racial awareness and unity. It's no surprise to me either, as I personally believe the "redpills" were made to combat the radical anti-fed unity that was arising among internet communities in the 2010s.

>>16947532
What I was really trying to say is that I support eugenics and the death penalty.

>>16947537
This literally doesn't address the point at all? wat

Anyways moving on in your essay:
>A person who wants to succeed should take responsibility for their own life, because their own responsible action is the best strategy to maximize their ability to survive and reproduce.

Why should personal success be defined as survival and reproduction? What if someone is happier not having children? why would reproduction be a success for such a person?

>>16947561
You'd be the first in the gas chambers, no wooden doors this time

>>16947523
Why is promiscuity a bad thing?
>>16947549
Lmao humanity shares everything that you claim to share with your race. Your race is part of humanity. I can immediately tell you about human history.
>>16947552
Fair enough. Positive eugenics doesn't seem bad to me. Forced sterilization has many horrible implocations though. Allowing any group be it government or whatever to dictate your right to reproduce is a huge overstep.

>>16947564
Can you please prove that you're 18+? Post ID and blur your name and shit, mate. This thread is honestly a travesty.

>>16947561
Positive eugenics as in rewarding one for having children seems good. Forced sterilization and forced selective breeding would likely have many unintended consequences though.

>>16946954
I really like your essay, but I took the liberty to make some corrections.

>The Metapolitics of Natural Law

>By Faggot van Larp

>The Basic Situation

>The laws of faggotry describe basic truths such as how my anus will lubricate itself at the sight of a nigger or how a cock may penetrate my sissy temple through sheer force, or how the lack of straight sex made me take refuge in fringe meme-ideology to make up for my lack of socialization, or how I will write a whole paragraph about raping a child as if it were sufficient to back my shit claims. The only relevant facts that dictate my essay is that I am a twelve years old illiterate sperg. Since humans are social beings, me abiding to the laws of faggotry makes me ripe for mockery and I then seethe real hard. Detractors from this viewpoint are invited to pick a actually engage with HeinrichWolff and see for themselves.
>(1) The laws of faggotry permit all to put at least one whole book of philosophy 101 up my ass, as indulging in more sophistry than I do is physically impossible. All that is required for me to gain at least one ounce of self-awareness would be for me to successfully talk to a girl once. ‘’If someone wanted to rape a child, he needs only an opportunity…’’ could you imagine being enough of an imbecile to actually try to make claim with a premise like this? What a faggot. (2) Furthermore, the laws of faggotry would permit my ego to be raped in my very own thread by the /lit/izenry after had just a glance over my ‘’essay’’. (3) In addition, any sort of accountability for these unsavory actions is entirely circumstantial, and not prescribed by the laws of faggotry in any way. (4) In the world of human behavior as I have described it, anyone can do whatever they want within the realm of possibility, and may or may not suffer consequences for it depending on the circumstances. This is the immutable law of the universe, although it would be more appropriate in the colloquial sense to say that there are no laws and no rules. Source : trust me bro.

>>16947582
If you want me to post physique you gotta do it first big buy

>>16947587
As much as I'd like to larp like OP, I recognize that forced sterilization of undesirables is probably not a good idea. You'd probably need to have some sort of government gibs program as incentive. But I fear that even this would only work in a profoundly wealthy society, even wealthier than our own.

>>16947606
God, no I don't want you to post your physique. I want you to demonstrate that you're over the age of 18 (the age required to post on 4chan, mind you).

>>16947590
Ah yes. I like how you start with Spewtons Law of immense faggotry and extrapolate outward from their. I'm now going to lift my pink arms and embrace my black brethren, as I feel a deep and honest feeling of connection with him. And after all, I'm allowesbto do exactly as I please.

>>16946954
> Why care about the people of these groups instead of any other person? Firstly, because nature has programmed you to value them more than others...

Natural selection doesn't select for instincts that if followed make a person happy but only for instincts that if followed help an individual survive and reproduce. Thus, it is entirely possible for nature to "program" an individual with an instinct that if followed would make them miserable. For example someone who fucks a bunch of women and then dies a painful death from an std has done a good job propagating his genes but his happiness? I don't think so. Thus, I don't see why an individual should be morally obliged to follow the instincts given to them by nature always.

>>16947552
>I didnt blame them for societies problems you shitwit. I said that ironically their interavtions with others only serve to distance them from their goak of racial awareness and unity. It's no surprise to me either, as I personally believe the "redpills" were made to combat the radical anti-fed unity that was arising among internet communities in the 2010s.
People on the right still hate the feds, it's your side who thinks they're based, lol.
>>16947577
>Lmao humanity shares everything that you claim to share with your race. Your race is part of humanity. I can immediately tell you about human history.
Oh really? Who's the protagonist, then? Which perspective is the "human perspective"? If you think the universal idea of "humanity" is anything other than a mere buzzword, you're in for a rude awakening.

>>16947610
If "forced sterilizations" alone is what you think I want to do, you didn't read the essay. Why leave a mass of nuetered trannies running around starting shit?

>>16946954
>secondly because you cannot care about everyone in a world where zero-sum competition exists.

You can only care for about 150 people give or take (dunbars number). Consequently, if you can justify not caring about other races because you can't care about that many people you can justify not caring about your race on the same basis. Which I assume from your name (heinrich lol) would be a problem to your central thesis but I'm not there yet.

>>16946954
>>16947606
post body

>>16947629
>you didn't read the essay
You're absolutely right. I saw your name, I detect you being sub-18, I refuse to pollute my brain and ruin my night.

>>16947636
you show yours before i show mine, you should've learned this playing doctor

>>16947610
Well yes, no doubt it would cause unwanted tensions between the various classes and groups of society. Look even farther than that though. We know from selective breeding of animals that the more pure bred animals become, the more succeptible they become to health defects and undesirable traits. Further, if we try to breed in only the best qualities not purity, we end up with unwanted ones, like hip dysplasia, short snouts, pugs eyes popping out if squeezed.

The best way to increase societies IQ is to increase socioeconomic equality. I understand that's a tough pill to swallow, but it's been proven to have a major impact. My theory is that the majority of non heritable IQ is formed early in childhood, and havinf multible generations with access ti good health and education creates a catalysing effect, increasing IQ with each generation until education and general health fall flat or begin to decline.

There are also many possibilities being opened up to humanity with CRISPR technology, but who knkws where that will lead. Typically though, altering genes invites cancer and deformity to biological matter.

>>16947644
What a wonderful display of rhetoric.

>>16947655
cope

>>16946954
Holy cringe

>>16947662
As a great rhetorician once said : "no u".
See >>16947339 for reference. Which you should learn to do, put references in your shit essay to back your shit claims.

>>16946954
>If someone doesn’t defend and promote themselves, they are suicidal and self-destructive.

If by promote themselves you mean not reproduce then how are they destroying themselves by not reproducing? that makes no sense.

>If someone doesn’t defend and promote their family, and instead allows them to be exploited or killed, they are an abomination. By abomination I mean something that has deviated significantly from the regular pattern of nature with negative consequences,...

Negative consequences for whom? If letting your race or family face bad consequences is good for you as an individual why shouldn't you do so?

>compounded with the failure to fulfill the duty nature has prescribed for males with a mate and offspring.

Nature isn't a person it doesn't prescribe anything you're humanizing again like you did with physics.

>If someone doesn’t defend and promote their tribes or nations, they are traitors.

If being a traitor is in your interest why should you care about your nations interest first? can you justify this?

>All of these failures are the result of weakness. Whether through fear, cowardice, ineptitude, or naivety they all represent a fundamental emasculation.

Someone can be strong, capable and courageous in pursuing an interest that is in conflict with the interests of their race. So this is false.

>>16947668

>>16947626
Oh boy. People on the righy celebrate the feds stomping out insurrection. Let me guess. You're yet another lost child. When I meant anti-fed unity. I meant it for realsies bitch. There were leftists and right-wingers on the chand prior to pol. But they rately labeled themselves such, and simply agreed that the government and corporate state was leading to a shitty place. This existed not just on 4chan, but many onlibe spaces. This culminated in Occupy Wall Street. Then, not long after they quelled that rebellion. Stormfags started raiding the chans. Then a "containment" board was created where they could disseminate lies and call it the truth. This was extremely effective unfortunately. Your ideology is very probably a psyop meant to sever the unity that was common on the internet and aimed at the elite. Believe what you want to though kid. I'm not your sensei.

>>16947679
It must be satirical. It's impossible to be this much of a sperglord.

>>16947682
dude, wasn't stormfront pretty much confirmed to be a honeypot too?

>>16947678
Ending your genetic lineage after billions of years of successful reproduction to produce you is a catastrophic failure

Second sentence didn't make sense, but in case you haven't figured it out I don't care if bad things happen to homos or non-whites

retarded take, dismissed

It never is.

Impossible, someone cannot be strong and at the same time be a race-mixer or degenerate

>>16947481

>>16947703
Just accept that your essay is shit and that you have been wrecked by /lit/ and go back.

>>16947647
>The best way to increase societies IQ is to increase socioeconomic equality
This seems to be the case to a certain degree, I will grant you that. I don't generally trust IQ charts that show most of Africa as literal retards (like pic) because culture and quality of education are SO important. I'm not saying that there are no differences between races in regard to IQ (I would be surpirsed if there weren't), I'm just saying that if we could get pretty much everybody below 100 as close to 100 as possible then that would be a net good for the planet. I also think we need to purge ~95% of the human race (ideally along the lines of health outcomes and IQ) but that's a story for another time.

>>16947703
Yeah, and regardless what happens, your "genes" will still be floating around in thousands of years, if humanity makes it that long. To be quite honest, us white people probably will need all of the melanin we can get to survive the ever looming environmental catastrophe we're speeding towards. Maybe the universe really is anti-white and wants to kill us off, so that the brown heat resistant races can finally achieve world peace.

>>16947726
forgot pic

>>16947703
Why? why is it a failure if not having children means you have a happier life? why is the alternative of having children preferable to you? cannot prove this.

Second sentence is plain english what? I said if an action you take is in your interest but against the interests of your race why shouldn't you take it?

Someone who is not white who conquers your land and rapes your woman isn't stronger than your non-race mixing ass? how the fuck is this physically impossible.

>It never is.
Proof?

>>16947721
No, you're shit. I don't hang out on /pol/ anymore if that's what you're referring to, too toxic and too many shills

>>16947735
>too toxic
you should follow your own principles and kys, because you're a fag

>>16947726
Yeah, I will even admit, that IQ and brain composition is very likely related in some ways to race. I don't think this makes one race inherently superior. There can be many types of different brain compositions and whats lacking in some may be abundant in others. Neuroscience is still such an underdeveloped field though. Yeah, apocalypse may be the only thing that zaves the planet. Humans seem awful parasitic as a whole.

>>16947727
Go get assraped by a dindu then

>>16947735
>too toxic
>"So I'll dump sewage in another board"
A BLUE BOARD NO LESS

>>16947739
Killing myself (whites killing themselves) is the opposite of what im advocating

>>16947759
What if killing yourself is in the interest of the white race? kek

>>16947742
I worked as a medic in a murder capital and never feared the black folks there. I'm not some pussy and I offer respect to each individual I meet. White people are more likely to molest children, so maybe you should protect your dainty prepubescent asshole from your "in-group."

>>16947758
For the record the same handful of posters turned this thread to shit, and I'm simply flinging it back in their faces. The essay itself isn't shit

>>16947759
You advocate for killing homosexuals and you are a fag (an homosexual). You should kill yourself in order to preserve the white race.

>>16947765
you sound kinda gay bro not gonna lie

>>16947770
The essay is shit. It got debunked to hell. Furthermore, stylistically it's garbage you should state your thesis way earlier so people know wtf you're trying to prove.

>>16947770
>The essay itself isn't shit

>>16947770
True, we should've ignored your larp, but I would've hated for you to live on thinking it was acceptable or proficient. You will grow out of your mental slavery if you're intelligent. Thinking in binaries hardly ever leads to an acceptable conclusion.

>>16947770
I think that you are starting to see that your "essay" is shit.

>>16947682
>Oh boy. People on the righy celebrate the feds stomping out insurrection.
>he thinks anarchist looting and race riots are an "insurrection"
>This culminated in Occupy Wall Street.
Few rightists took part in that and the whole movement got torpedoed by radical liberals, so I am not sure what you're on about.
Also, no one cares about "internet unity against the government" (aka a bunch of nerds who nod their heads to the wet paper that we all know as libertarianism).

>>16947784
I think it's even more acceptable since it set a bunch of trannies off, shills are nature's best testing device for how good an idea is

>>16947781
woops! sorry there, i just rebunked it

>>16947791
>If people say my essay is good then it's good
>If people disagree with my racist bullshit then they're trannies and what trannies don't like is good.
Literally unfalsifiable. How are you not in a cult?

>>16947795
omg waycism

>>16947809
not a refutation of what was said

>>16947794
You still live with your mom, don't you?

>>16947817
You're your own refutation, because you are a degenerate traitor (and probably non-white). I automatically dismiss whatever you say

>>16947809
YOU HAVE INSOFAR FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU ARE 18+
I WILL SICK THE JANNIES ON YOU!

>>16947822
That's fallacious reasoning the quality of an argument isn't based on who states it.

>>16947823
I already said: you want me to post physique, you do it first. Don't be self conscious over your massive rolls of rotting fat tissue, ridicule will provide the motivation to change

>>16947823
unfathomably based

>>16947832
Yes, it is. Case in point I dismiss every argument a Jew makes.

>>16947842
>If a jew says 1+1=2 this retard won't believe it because he's a jew
kek

>>16947790
The feds clearly cared. That's why they created you and OP.

>>16947791
Define cognitive dissonance again. You used it in your fanfic.

>>16947861
Genuinely can't tell if you're just coping or if you're a paranoid schizophrenic.

>>16947867
>fags make borderline retarded comments
>i ignore them
must be cognitive dissonance?

>>16947879
Think about it. There's no way someone can lack total self awareness and be like OP.

>>16947836
>you want me to post physique
I do not. That's clearly not what I'm asking. Your refusal to post proof is highly suspicious.
>Larp namefag
>writes like an edgy 16 year old
>argues like an edgy 16 year old
>Came from /pol/
>Calls everyone a tranny
>"Detractors from this viewpoint are invited to pick a fight with a speeding semi."
HhhHhmmmmMMMmm...

>>16947906
not surprised you are a leaf cuck

>>16947900
After OP did the whole "no sex before marriage" thing I'm pretty sure he's actually been trolling all along.

>>16947900
How does hating shitkins and abominations like trannies and homos make me unaware of myself?

A lot of dilating going on in this thread

>>16947913
Born on international women's day too. Let's see some proof.

>>16947921
Look at your namefag and tacky aesthetic. Nobody outside of /pol/ is impressed by shit like this your whole persona is total cringe. You're literally just a manufactured carbon copy of an edgy discord 16 year old with no personality outside of "hate jews and niggers durr". A self aware person would understand this.

>>16946954
My dude, you're going down the wrong path. I suggest that you read some philosophy, like Alasdair MacIntyre.
The problem is that you want to defend your values by providing them with objective, "scientific" grounding. That is impossible. Values can only be defended on the basis of some other, often unstated a priori principle, e.g. John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle, the validity of the revelation of this or that faith, or through bald-faced, Nietzschean assertion, e.g. "no one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body." These are the only paths available to you.
What is most important, your conviction must not rely on some real-world, scientific "evidence." That is, you must not accept the premises of the people with whom you disagree. Conviction does not require evidence. Evidence does not produce conviction. Values are not based on facts.
My final tip: Drop the race stuff. That does not matter. You will eventually realize that shared values matter more than race. If you read deeply, you will also realize that the same set of ideas that gave rise to the racial nationalism you believe in at present are also those that have destroyed and replaced it with everything you despise. In order to restore what has been lost, you must reject the Enlightenment itself.

>>16947952
I cross the is/ought barrier through the existence of values. e.g. if someone has this value (like surviving), then they ought to do this, and if they don't do it despite being able to, then they deserve the consequences (death).

Race is shared values. Niggers do not have the same values as europeans, and never will.

Also women who get abortions should have their heads bashed in with a metal club

>>16947081

> "THE JOOOOS AAAAAH I'm going INSANE!!!"
> meanwhile the City of London has been doing everything they blame the Jews for for over a millenia, but let's not talk about that.

Wtf is wrong with stormlarpers?

>>16947975
>Race is shared values
You are (presumably) white. Probably of Northern or Northwestern European stock. I am White, Northwestern European stock. I am appalled at the values you've presented. How can you reconcile this with you claim that "race is shared values"?

>>16947982
Because you, along with most other whites, have been corrupted by the jews

>>16947985
Ah, I see.

>>16947985
And there's no way for non-whites to become like whites? Only whites can deviate from their """natural"""shared value?

>>16947975
Race is shared skin color. As a white American I reject your arbitraty moralizing absolutism. I reject your entire value system and the egotistical presuppositions from which they arose.
>>16947985
I grew up without television and still don't use it. I understand propaganda models and don't trust the mainstream media. I live in the middle of nowhere in the woods with my wife and children. We share the same race, but I despise you. The elites of all races absolutely have played a role in subverting the values of the public, they don't do it to destroy whiteness, they do it for money, power, and to foster disunity. The only way we defeat them is by rejecting this idpol dogma that they want you to buy into it. You're the perfect puppet. You share nothing in common with any tangivle facet of society. You ahre no values with the white elites, you share no value with the trailer park meth heads. You only share value with those equally as brainwashed as yourself.

>>16948012
okay homo

>>16947982

Just saw a research on Leaf shared values. Turns out Leafs one side to the other of the continent tend to value democracy, gender equality and the Rule of Law.
So I guess all Leafs, be them French, Anglos, mutts or whatever must all belong to a single race, right? Even tho the paper was complaining that they expected *more* shared values...

>>16948012
>I grew up without television and still don't use it. I understand propaganda models and don't trust the mainstream media. I live in the middle of nowhere in the woods with my wife and children. We share the same race, but I despise you. The elites of all races absolutely have played a role in subverting the values of the public, they don't do it to destroy whiteness, they do it for money, power, and to foster disunity. The only way we defeat them is by rejecting this idpol dogma that they want you to buy into it. You're the perfect puppet. You share nothing in common with any tangivle facet of society. You ahre no values with the white elites, you share no value with the trailer park meth heads. You only share value with those equally as brainwashed as yourself.
Holy based.

>>16948005
It's far easier to destroy than it is to create. The higher values whites have attained biologically simply don't exist in the lower subhuman form of the nergoid, so it would be impossible for them to "change"

>>16947975
My dude, you sound like a federal agent. Look up Alasdair MacIntyre and think hard about what sort of person you might be talking to.

>>16948012
You'd let some subhuman pavement ape paw and fuck your daughter, and you'd be happy about it
>idpol
enlightened centrist lmao

Whites can't even corrupt jews, what a useless race

>>16948037
>should
It's hypothetical, I'm allowed to hate other people as long as I don't do anything or make direct threats

>>16948035
Name one of these higher values that ALL white innately have but are not found in black people.

>>16948063
Chivalry/Goodness

>>16948063
>all
bell curve look it up

>>16948047

Still makes you an unlovable cunt tho.

>>16948076
To be hated by traitors is honorable and esteemed

>>16948068
>Chivalry/Goodness

But there's nothing good about you or what you do, son.

>>16948047
No, I mean that you don't sound like a real human being. You sound like a caricature of an alt-right Neo-Nazi.

>>16948089
On the contrary, you are pure evil, I am good (or at least more good than you are)

>>16948087
>esteemed
By whom? Poltards?

>>16948098

Not even, since he got kicked out of /pol/ too for being too much of a little bitch.

>>16948098
Anyone who is also good, and God too

>>16948109
I'm pretty sure God doesn't distinguish between races of men. Only piety matters.

>>16948116
niggers and other subhumans are a shittest by god for the white race, they don't matter otherwise

>>16948074
You clearly didn't read the bell curve faggot

>>16948121
Sounds like the opposite of good desu. Why do white men molest children at a higher rate? Why do they drive under the influence more often? Why do they commit mass murder more often?

>>16948138
black hands typed this

>>16948121

Dude you can't even fucking write a legible sentence. What are you even trying to do here? No one is going to read your schizoid paper, we have Jewish writers (aka, good ones) to read.
Just quit. Log off.

>>16948152
Lurkers, I don't actually care if lefties read it or not

>>16948161
No one serious about recreating community will take your shitposts seriously. Refer to my original post >>16947952 and get to reading.

>>16948161

> Husserl
> Wittgenstein
> Leftists

MFW

This is wore than the undergraduate philosophy essays I mark day to day. Here, I'm going to give you a free lesson in writing an essay. I'm doubling up a little on an earlier critique post, but I might as well be systematic

>since humans are physical systems

Baseless, provide argument for this

>Detractors from this viewpoint are invited to pick a fight with a speeding semi.
>(1)

Possible, impossible, forbidden, permit. These are big boy words. You need to define these so a reader isn't left in the dark. You would lose marks for this. Plato and Aristotle, two western thinkers (you love those sorts of guys right?) are probably up your alley. I imagine you would have read the basis for WESTERN thought before writing this though. Right?

>(2)

You use the word fair and unfair without defining them. You would lose marks for this again. Because you didn't properly justify the laws of motion governing human action, this argument is made even weaker. Assuming your premise is true, for charity's sake, it still doesn't follow.

>(3)

True, but not really enlightening. Physics doesn't tell us about ethics, hardly groundbreaking.

>(4)

You basically deny the existence of super-sensible substances here. Again, Aristotle has some interesting chapters on this. Denying super-sensibles also basically ruins any appeals to nature, ought (x SHOULD happen this way) statements and anything beyond pure materialism. That doesn't bode well for the rest of your program does it?

That's just part 1. You probably wouldn't pass at this rate.

>>16948599
>Detractors from this viewpoint are invited to pick a fight with a speeding semi.

I forgot this one. "Arguments" like this are frowned upon. Stuff like "well isn't that tricky to work out" or "People have pondered questions thusly for millenia" often fall out when we're writing something in a rush, but they don't add anything to a thesis

>>16948599
Based. Are you a professor or a grad student?

>Detractors from this viewpoint are invited to pick a fight with a speeding semi.

I run downhill zigzagging. If it works for bears it'll work for a semi.

>>16947031
chapotrannies really think this
>>16947002
>which is probably a mistake
it is

>>16948656
Not American, but do law postgrad. I have a degree in philosophy

>The Human Situation

>by nature exploitative creatures, meaning ... required to kill, consume...in order to survive, grow, and reproduce

We can get very picky and say that because you denied super-sensible substances (especially, that there are no laws and rules), that the use of the word required is baseless. Required implies that we /ought/ to survive, grow and reproduce. If there are no laws and rules, why /should/ I do those? I'll allow this to be an assumption for the rest of the section though.


>humans are beings who must engage in necessary evil

So you implicitly define the killing of animals, aggression to humans (even in defence) as evil? I know you don't really think that, so this sentence is pointless (don't forget that there being no laws and rules also means this is baseless)

>mental qualities are more important for survival and reproduction than physical qualities are

I'd disagree. People write endless essays about the way that people instantly judge and evalue people based on physical appearance. There are legal studies that show handsome people get lower sentences. Chad the brainlet can fuck until his peepee falls off, Quentin the manlet with a chemistry PHD and Ubermensch mindset certainly isn't shooting coom as much (except into a tissue).

> if someone does not do something that he ought to do

We can safely discard the rest of this paragraph because of the ought. It sucks, but you've run yourself into a circle with this one.

I get where you're going with this paragraph. Historically we've had to do all sorts of brutal stuff (by modern standards) to survive. Denying this intuitively feels like we're denying a powerful win-at-all-costs mentality in ourselves. Taking responsibility for ourselves is an act of the will, the will seems to be the most important thing for survival in the modern world. Sure, I can see where that is coming from.

You wrote it poorly though.

Please read more before trying again. Please do not write essays based off of fashwave images and short youtube videos that only preach to the choir on your views.

I can't be bothered marking any more. Everyone else, don't bother reading it. If I did something retarded please call me out, I won't be listening to comments from Heinrich though.

>>16946954
The picture is enough for me to know that your writing is garbage

>>16947978
Shabbos goyim are spiritual Jews.

>WAAAH WHY SHOULD I PUT MY HAPPINESS AT RISK BY SUPPORTING MY RACE
Duties>Rights, nigger. The Enlightenment was a mistake, those with no sense of duty deserve no rights.

>>16948788

> The City of London Corporation, es. 1067 by William the Conqueror
> But it was the JOOOOOS all along.

Why are you like this?

>206 posts
>22 posters

>>16947261
Fucking kek

Fashwave is just the Rightoid version of leftists dancing on tik-toks in front of text boxes telling people about how ACKHUALLY all white people are racist

>>16948800
>if any organization is founded by someone it can never be subverted by anyone else and it MUST always hold the same values that it held at its founding

Why are you like this?

>>16948843
>creating your own music from scratch and samples and posting it with kitschy pink and purple tinted pictures of greek statues is the same as publicly humiliating yourself by making a video where you dance to pop music
wew

>>16947261
Basado

>>16948865
leftists do all that and more. What's your point? You both put an opinion over colours and noise for mental masturbation

>>16948889
>AKSHULLY I DIDNT MEAN TO COMPARE THE TWO THINGS THAT I COMPARED I MEAN TO COMPARE ONE OF THE THINGS I MENTIONED WITH SOMETHING I DIDNT MENTION HAHA WHAT NOW

>>16948898
fashwave = tiktoks. I never backed down

>>16948902
see >>16948865

>>16948865
Well, you're publicly humiliating yourself either way

>>16948916
Same in essence. The aesthetic choice of mental masturbation is secondary

>>16948917
How does anonymously posting OC publicly humiliate yourself?

I don't mind the brute materialism although as others have said, you assume it rather than prove it. But it's fine as an assumption for certain purposes.

The main problem is when you derive an ought from an is, in the evolution section. It's not that I object on some a priori moral grounds to your amoralism, it's that you state a fairly vulgar Spencerian "might is right" morality without justifying it. Why should organisms want to reproduce? Survive, maybe. But even then all you would have asserted is moral nihilism based on moral scepticism.

But then you jump (in The Political Situation) to group altruism. Again, you didn't even justify caring about one's own offspring or genetic legacy. The build-up to this point seems rather to support a radical egoism (which would open the door to all the usual criticisms of such egoism, like why even bother writing an essay telling others how to be efficiently egoistic?). Now you talk about how we've been "programmed," which is fine I guess but a bit of a cop-out. Haven't we also been "programmed" by evolution with altruism?

You say that universal humanism is impossible but you indicate that human fellow-feeling exists in nested hierarchies of family, tribe, nation. Why can't we care about people in different degrees and in different ways? It's possible to be a member of a family, tribe, and nation, to have friends and enemies at all of these levels and at the global level, and to love humanity as a whole. Again, I am not trying to juxtapose a humanistic vision with your vision arbitrarily, I am only pointing out that you haven't progressed through your demonstration in a way that naturally precludes my thinking of possibilities other than the ones you are presenting to me. If I'm going "yeah but why not x instead? or y?" as I read, you aren't persuading me enough.

The "if one doesn't defend himself, ipso facto he wasn't going to stick around for long anyway" argument has a kind of realpolitik to it and fits the "metapolitical," biologistic themes of the early essay. But when you transition to "abominations," "traitors," "emasculations," "regular patterns," and "duties," I lose you, because it conflicts with the radical egoism that seemed to follow from that early biologism. Your whole initial build-up suggests a Nietzschean overthrow of unjustified moral and normative schemes by a return to biological and existential realities. Why are you now speaking in moral and normative terms? ("A RIGHTEOUS man SHOULD ... he OUGHT ...")

Your analysis seems Schmittian but I think most of the themes you are touching on were covered far more subtly in Schmitt himself. The spectre of Schmitt is hovering over the paper, but the paper also seems like a blunted, muddled version of Schmitt's insights. This is a very unfavourable juxtaposition. If you were making an advance or twist on Schmitt's positions, it would be a lot safer.

>>16948925
The fact that radlib tiktokers mentally masturbate contributes nothing towards the false idea that anonymously creating your own music is the same as publicly posting videos of yourself simulating a seizure to the tone of pop music.

>>16948933
For example your discussion of total war is recognisably Schmittian, also reminiscent of Ludendorff. It is perfectly interesting to a point, at least to the point that it recapitulates theories about the necessary incommensurability of enemies when the stakes are existential (competition for finite resources e.g.), but you are missing lots of potential subtlety with your zero-sum approach to obliterating impediments and limits to one's in-group, like criminals, parasites, and traitors, not to mention enemies. Certainly there's a case to be made that traitors should be handled ruthlessly, at least. But what about rehabilitation, or even brainwashing? What about vassalising weak and defeated enemies, strategically using them for forced labour, or tactically manipulating peripheral enemies through proxy wars for long-term strategic payoff? Your discussion of degeneracy presupposes in-group morality, which is fine, but because morality is not binary, it begs the question you are claiming to answer. When is something degenerate enough to destroy outright, and not rehabilitate? Well, when it's degenerate. That doesn't tell us anything. Presumably your personal list of degenerates (homosexuals, paedophiles and the like) is a product of your own in-group morality, and not posited universally.

Your discussion of the nested hierarchy of group structures should have come earlier and it should be more clear that you are positing it as biologically caused, thus unquestionable. However, you will be criticised by leftists for claiming biological innateness for these categories. Much anthropological research has focused on critiquing the "Cartesian subject" by showing that primitive and non-European cultures have porous or complex subjectivities, and conceptions and experiences of personhood, sometimes spanning multiple human persons and even animals, forces, spirits, and objects in non-human nature. Another weak point is where you define nation as grounded in an ethnos. This could be seen as begging the question, and in any case it will be countered by empirical examples of "states" and political organisations of all kinds that were not "ethnic" by any single, obvious definition.

>>16948933
>>16948937
Overall I don't find your thesis coherent but fragmentary, and I think your argumentation needs work if it's going to convince a reader who isn't already sympathetic.

I think you know what you want to say, but you haven't yet differentiated between ideas you can see vividly (and perhaps express forcefully) and ideas you can prove logically, that is coldly and necessarily. As I said, Schmitt looms over the essay but any serious reader of Schmitt knows that the joy of reading him is that he doesn't fuck around. Everything he says is logical, impenetrably solid, it progresses inexorably, and it gives you the impression that the reason he can show this to you is that he has seen through to the ultimate core the matter while you have been fooling around at the surface. Perhaps it's not fair to be compared to this, but this is the tradition you are writing in, and people who will be interested in this sort of writing are going to be aware of it and compare you to the masters whether you like it or not.

My advice would be to go and read Schmitt slowly, carefully, and differentiate the vulgar Spencerianism in your own thought (which isn't to say abandon it) from the logical core. Also differentiate your ideas from the piss and vinegar with which you want to express them.

You write well though. A few rhetorical excesses and some bloat but overall far better than most.

>>16948933
>>16948937
>>16948969
Good, clear, and detailed response.
t. not OP