Has there ever been another man absolutely right about everything?

>spooks
HAHAHA HOW ARE SPOOKS EVEN REAL JUST CLOSE YOUR EYES HAHHAHAHAH LIKE JUST GO AWAY

No, it's cancer. The first thing the human species discovered was that by being together their chances of survival increased.
By promoting egoism is going against everything we are as a species.

...

This

Plato
Shopenhower
Nichola tesla
Elliot rodgers

This

...

Only Marx the sociologist was right. Marx the political theorist is a joke.

>I've never read the book.

If you had, you'd understand why your statement is idiotic.

Elliott Hulse

>Marxism is a science
>empirically proven wrong
>b-b-but its still a science, we just changed the theory so its impossible to prove it wrong!

No. Many of his premises were correct but his conclusions were complete shit.

He supported Marius

Ecce Queen of Bithynia

This. Why would even his political theories be taken serious if he wasn't part of the society? His sociologist theories are right because when you aren't part of the system you can have an objective view of it.

Joe McCarthy. If you haven't heard, documents were released, and we was right about the entire communist infiltrator plot.

And yet his name is still synonymous with unfounded paranoia.

This

>empirically proven wrong
Where? Because of marginalism? I think you're confusing Marxism for Marxism–Leninism, which was actually created by Stalin, and really should be called Stalinism. And even then, Stalinism didn't actually do that bad, it was just despotic.

>actchually you're confusing this term Linux with what should be referred to as GNU+Linux.

Where's that "myspecialversionofcommunismwasneverapplied.jpg"?

>this meme

He named a bunch of random people, some of which were nailed by the FBI, who actually had the resources and inclination to investigate espionage.

It's a wonder he wasn't an honest to god Soviet intelligence asset, given how much he fucked up US policy towards the Soviet Union by turning it into a partisan issue.

>implying modern liberalism isn't the outgrowth of KGB operations to sew the seeds of dissent and countercultural political policy

I'm onto you Pinko...

the man who said nothing

>technology is changing rapidly
>society changes rapidly with it

Remember all those KGB operations in between 1865 and 1914, when America changed dramatically in just about every way?

eggman

Your assertions have little to do with what I'm actually talking about. I'm talking about taking the worst aspects of postmodernism being turned into merits, and the distractions they bring while, by metrics, the society deteriorates.

I suspect that most of the SJW identity politics is the work of the Fortune 500 trying to keep people off their ass.

Think about it, who's a bigger threat, somebody asking about capital gains and tax havens, or somebody with neon hair yelling about pronouns.

this

Bigger threat? They're both Americans. I guess you could say the one who's against cultural cohesion instead of the ones who contribute taxes and producing jobs.

The largest threat is the status quo ruling class of power-havers. Yes, this includes top corporations, but they are but one facet of influence to the policy-makers, who are the true blight. They're also the easiest that these two-faced charlatans use to garner votes due from the have-nots promising to punish the haves, then keeping the status quo running business as usual.

Just look at the Obama administration, possibly the biggest demagogue in our livetimes, yet the economic facts lay out that economic disparity has exploded under his administration. The ones with money were the ones able to make money, while his wet-blanket policies caused the economy to stagnate, and stifled the opportunities of the little man.

>who contribute taxes and producing jobs

The middle class?

>implying any of that is my Sache

>tfw i read the transcendental doctrine of elements for the first time

It felt like God was revealing everything to me...

Middle class is working class. Companies produce jobs, and both directly and by extension create more revenue. Up the rates on them, and you have less incentive and more risk into creating more job opportunities, or company purchases, thus slowing down the economy. And the regulations passed to effect large and mid sized businesses tend to strangle and stomp small business as well.

C'mon man, this is basic sense. And that you knee-jerk responded after the first few sentences means you didn't even read the rest.

>Companies produce jobs

How will they do this without consumers?

If you open a factory that makes couches, and nobody is buying couches, all you've done is given a deserving community a new crack den.

And why didn't high tax rates throttle growth in the 50s, when the top income tax brackets were in the 90s?

Incidentally, I'm going to start saging, because none of my posts have anything to do with history at this point.

>producers need consumers
No shit? Jobs and economic growth come from producers. First you jump from my point about McCarthy to pre-Soviet Union societal changes. Then when I try to get back on topic making it more poignant about the hijacking of terrible postmodernist ideals, you go onto some 1%er bullshit. Then why I try to explain how capitalistic economies work, and why producers contribute more to tax revenue, then you come back with some cyclical nature bullshit of how producers rely on consumers (no shit, and consumers create the need for producers to fill), and come back with some Sanders talking point.

Even if I refuted with the amazingly non-reproductive situation of the post-war US economy of being the capitalist world superpower and a virtual money-printing machine, and the fact that nobody in their right mind would actually pay that high of taxes, you'll jump around to some other unrelated tangent instead of actually having an argument.

I'm through with these mental gymnastics, you argue like a liberal. And by argue, I mean sidestep the point and go off on a tangent instead of having an actual debate. No thanks.

Well, there was a central point I was trying to make.

There is a well connected, well funded group of people who have every incentive, and every tool, to manipulate American public opinion.

They call themselves registered lobbyists, or public relations firms.

It's an entirely rational strategy.

But yeah, supply side economics is literally the worst idea to enter the field of economics since Marxism.

ha

Hegel's philosophy is literally "Some Prussian Guy Hits the Acid for the First Time"

Which isn't to say there isn't a lot of relevant and correct stuff in there, but Hegel's problems are mostly the same as Kant's—going against their own system at times to stick the Christian God in there. The whole triad thing was an autistic matter of taste, his Proto-Lacanian ideas on the Self I disagree with personally, and his literal State worship was pleb as fuck. He got a lot else right, but he couldn't step back from his context at all, and for a former mystic that's kind of disappointing.

I think Hegel's true brilliance is his logic, with his greatest insight being that the categories must develop--i.e., that truth is historical. I definitely agree in that he certainly stretches in parts of his philosophy; but his deduction of the categories is absolutely brilliant, even if one disagrees with the dialectical method.

I can definitely see that. I actually think Hegel's best contributions were the more metaphysical aspects, I kind of think his Holism and World Spirit and whatnot sort of created a philosophy of philosophy in a sense and that Hegel was operating on a very different level from most former philosophers (though not all). Unlike Kant, he didn't cop out at those levels, imo.

I just really am so surprised that he couldn't see past his own context. Either that, or that he compromised his own work, in a way, for the sort of personal gain Schopenhauer was so salty about.

What an atrocious graph.

Like, really, the absolute worst way to represent that information.

what do you mean that he was unable to see beyond his own context? This seems to be something which Hegel himself would admit, given the historical character of his philosophy.

His belief that Prussia was the height of the State, that Germans were the final end of philosophical thinking, etc. His philosophy was beautifully about the historical nature of truth, but I guess in my interpretation it's that it's sort of an evolution towards the one Truth, the Holistic oneness of the universe or whatever.

Everything he did, he did in Triads, in order to build Catholic trinitarianism into his philosophy (a big mistake in my opinion, and part of him being unable to see past context)

Philosophy
Chinese -> Greeks -> Germans

"Prussia is the best, the State is God's divine will on earth and this is the perfect example of it" is pretty contextual in my mind.

...

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was better.

>"I love charts, charts are great"
>I love words, I have the best words

Literally a retarded faggot. Good luck choosing between a criminal prozzie & a man baby retard fag

As a Mathematician but not a Philosopher.

What about the Libertarian?

>another man
try manlet lmao

>who's a bigger threat, somebody asking about capital gains and tax havens, or somebody with neon hair yelling about pronouns.

They're one in the same. Google "George Soros". Money hoarding jew responsible for the existence of the neon hair girl yelling about pronouns.

I don't think his triadic thinking was in order to accomplish anything specific, desu. I think his dialectic was essentially the result of Fichte's having discerned the necessary role the Not-I plays in consciousness. I don't think his dialectic had an agenda insofar as he believed it to be true, but I do agree that he stretches at times

...

Holy king of manlets. When will they learn, apparently they haven't since 1800

What I find weird is that nobody ever mentioned it. Surely 5-foot-nothing was incredibly short even for the period.