Authoritarianism is bad

>Rothschilds

hurr

>implying Rothschilds don't exist
>implying Rothschilds don't own and influence pro globalization media

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group
>The Economist Group is owned by the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders.

Stay ignorant sheep

Politics is not the search for perfection, it is merely the search for improvement.

The US media is still better at addressing problems and informing society than the Soviet media was.

That doesn't mean the anti authoritarian mentality didn't exist. No two people agree on absolutely everything, and very few people agree completely on even most of the important things, so submitting to one rigid authority was always going to make someone angry, but the thing is they couldn't do anything about and authoritarian government was arguably necessary at the time. People who advocate for authoritarian governments almost always imagine themselves or someone with almost the exact same view point as being in power, they don't account for the fact that in all likelyhood the person in power disagree with them on at least one important issue. It doesn't matter so much in a non authoritarian society if the authority disagrees with, but if the supreme ruler(s) of your society disagree with you you could be fucked.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=ST86JM1RPl0

Oh, one point I forgot to mention is to look at how many leftists turned into anarchists following the election.

I disagree just look at Trumps election and how the entire Mainstream Media got blindsided by it.

Basically this.

The west divided the government powers into three branches, and then you have each branch being constantly checked, and then you have that big check every 4 years. Sounds complicated, but at the end of the day this guarantees that a state doesn't fuck up too bad.

When we began to take it for granted.

The alternative to authority is a patchwork of warlords no less amoral and pushed to far greater violence in reaction to threats (each other). Relatively speaking, in such a world authority means unity, it means peace. It means instead of shanking someone you negotiate with them with an official or judge presiding.

The system is set up to benefit the rulers, however the cause of that is not authority and people confuse the 2 when they get frustrated with how authority is used.

Compare Trump's election to what happened to the USSR in 1991 though.

Nothing is perfect, but less authoritarian societies typically have better performing media.

I'd rather rely on the BBC than Xinhua, and if somebody writes an ED page that's even better.

Yes, I am implying "the Rothschilds" as a shadowy organization of world controllers doesn't exist. No, I am not implying people named Rothschild doubt exist.

Meanwhile, Russian state propaganda has totally cucked you all, but of course THAT is just a crazy conspiracy theory...

>using the USA as an example of free media

It started when Aristotle wrote Politics.

Well you're willfully ignorant then. Goob job on drinking the koolaid.

wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/250
>Hi Hillary,

I am back from the unpredictable and exciting elections in Britain.

Congratulations on all the good things you are doing at State.

You have so many fans from Manmohan Singh, who smiled broadly when we talked about you, to those women who

never stop dreaming.

I would love to catch up. I have to be in DC from the 12th-15th May, in case you have any time to sneak away for a few

minutes.

I understand it may not be possible, but thought I would check.

In any event, I remain your loyal adoring pal.

Xoxox

Lynn

wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/22544

>Hi Hillary,
Trust all is well.

I have done some thinking about the ideas we discussed at dinner a couple of months ago.
I have some further thoughts that I would love to run by you.
Any chance you are free in DC at any time from the 16-20 thof May?

Or, any time or place that works for you.
Lotsof Love,

Lynn
xoo

And who said anything about the Russians? The Russians aren't my government, if the Russians are the only ones that'll expose secrets that the government wants to keep secret from it's citizens than so be it, I'll welcome Russian influence on domestic politics in the name of truth

You're entitled to your own opinion, but Imo that's naive. State owned media is still state owned media no matter whether the government is democratic or authoritarian

...

Whatever you say Vlad.

>Get BTFO
>literally post primary sources showing intent to schmooze with Clinton in DC and name dropping an Indian government economist

>post meme cartoon to defend lack or argument to the contrary

>facts don't back my position
>resort to ad hominem

Maybe one day you'll break out of the brainwashing and you'll finally realize that the people at the top don't have your best interests in mind. Keep appealing to an outdated sense of national identity that makes you easier to manipulate that your betters don't even adhere to

So if you send e-mails to someone that means you totally control them?

Because I don't need someone else to tell me what to do, i'm am nothing.

No of course not, but I feel like you don;t understand how lobbying and schmoozing on capital hill worjs.
But anyways it is circumstantial evidence.
You can come up with your own interpretation of the facts, but in my eyes, there's too much circumstantial evidence out there to believe in the narrative that the Rothschilds don't have some influence on the major players in DC or internationally.

search for yourself
search.wikileaks.org/?q=Lynn forester

When authoritarian gocernments had nobody to check them aside from one or a few persons.
If that person is lax or uncaring corruption will rise and fuck everything up, see the ottoman empire for example.

I do understand, I know that this sort of corruption is commonplace and far worse takes place. So if the Rothschilds control the government, the worse offenders must be like deities. Or more likely the Rothschilds actually engaged in corruption are just a few among many and if you gave a shit you'd be looking at corruption in general instead of nitpicking an e-mail someone with the surname "Rothschild" sent to Hillary.

Nobody is so far ahead intellectually that they should be given free reign over other peoples lives.

Whenever I start falling for the meme that we need a good strong authoritarian in power to fix our problems, I imagine that authoritarian being someone ideologically opposed to me and remember how fucking garbage that'd be. If you're right wing imagine some SJW fuckwit having complete control of your government. If you're left wing imagine some alt-right dipshit. Similar exercise. Having a guy with sweeping powers isn't a magic bullet, they're just as capable of being wrong as anyone else.

You never want to hand a man power with the childish assumption that it surely won't be used against -you-. If it's not 'your guy', maybe it'll be the guy after him. I'd rather have a government where its powers are limited against the people I dislike, in order to prevent having a government with that power wielded by the people I dislike. Once the apparatus is in place it's a lot harder to dismantle than it is to set up.

>Hi Hillary,
>Trust all is well.

>I hereby command thee to execute order 66

>Lotsof Love,

>Lynn
anything in particular, you're the schizophrenic conspiracy theorist who spends hours pouring over this

>implying
I named more than just the Rothschilds in the initial post
see
Only one I forgot to mention was Soros but only because he's an alt-right boogeyman. Only reason I'm focusing on the Rothschilds is because that's the only one the poster deemed was dumb to mention. Of course I'm against lobbying in general it's just that user assumes that Rothschild aren't part of the problem like other billionaire political moguls.

Ad hominems aren't arguments faggot.
The name of the game in capital hill is access. You pay money in order to get your views and policy objectives across. If she's able to get dinner with HRC then she's got access.

These two anons hit the nail on the head;

>Nobody is so far ahead intellectually that they should be given free reign over other peoples lives.

>Having a guy with sweeping powers isn't a magic bullet, they're just as capable of being wrong as anyone else.

Authoritarians believe that they are better than everyone else, and because of that they're the only ones with valid perspectives. Anyone who has ever opened a history book knows how laughable that idea is, because history is full of tinpot dictators who surrounded themselves with yesmen and made horrible life-ending blunders because of it.

OP here
A lot of people seem to be conflating authority with autocracy, so I'll clarify a bit.
When I say "authoritarian" I mean a collective/congress of people making being big, far reaching and having a large amount of laws.
I'm not referring to totalitarianism, monarchy or dictatorships of the sort, I just don't make that clear.

If the dictator is a good person and actually has the best interests for the people perhaps authoritarianism wouldn't be so bad. But I prefer liberty and the concept of natural rights.

Liberty and human rights might be a meme at this point in the west because generally speaking we have it pretty good and being denied separate bathrooms or being exposed to "microaggressions" is not having your human rights violated so at this point I think that modern day western liberalism is aimless and doesn't contribute to the modern world with that said though I don't support a different type of extreme where we all live in a totalitarian society where the fucking individual doesn't matter and all forms of individuality is crushed by the state.

fpbp

There's plenty of authoritarian countries out there user, go live in them and come back to us when you figure out the answer

It's a holdover from very small tribes,
We all have a small sense in our deep brain that it is a good idea, and it is, only in a very small tribe, where everyone is your kin and share 99% of culture, goals and ideas. And maybe in a military unit working together.
The problem is once you want more than one tribe to work together to make something better, you need less authoritarianism, and the more tribes you have the less and less authoritarianism you need and more and more compromise. Becuase two brains are better than one, and the debate between the two brains is where wisdom is found. (Provided a lot of other things is going right at the same time of course).
~
~
Side note, that is way the hermit seeking truth is so useless to those in the thick of actully solving problems and moving society forward.
And why things like a 10 year college career prepares you so little for what you actully need to do and know in most jobs (jobs not in academia). Becuase so much of life is resolving differences between people in a way that uses more than just your brain, but invokes many brains, and more than just the brains most reflexabliy loyal to you. And even the better authoritarian rulers are worse than middlers in other systems, over long enough time spans. And if you really look into successful authoritarian history you'll find they weren't very authitarian internally at all

Whenever I start falling for the meme that we need democratic societies to fix our problems, I imagine a democratic society when a party is importing tens of thousands of people who vote like that party 80% of the times of more. If you're right wing imagine...wait you don't have to imagine, this is already happening.

ebin

Imo the love of authoritarianism arises from people being lazy. Wouldn't it be convenient if someone i agree with would just fix everything and let me get back to my animu?

>I want an unknown man to hold arbitrary power over me
Well, I think that this warrants calling you a
C U C K
U
C
K

>wait you don't have to imagine, this is already happening.
Oh shit, where is this happening? I hope it's not happening in my country!

>*manchild blabbering*
You realize that if a kid hits a man and man decides to murder the kid and all of his family its the man to blame for the death of the family, not the kid.

you seem like a guy that has a 'good or evil' worldview. Why don't you go to tumblr and make a blogpost about it?

i think it was after cain wandered to the wilderness and reproduced with a bunch of animals.

That's silly. When a new system of government emerges, tries to take over its neighbors and spreads an ideology incompatible with your destroying them is perfectly rational

holy strawman

It started with the first slave rebellion.

It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again

Greek style democracy is the best form of government, prove me wrong.

Protip: you can't

Because rules suck, and unnecessary rules suck even more.

This isn't logical whatsoever.

Do you live in a western country?
Then it's probably happening there.

When people realised that an authoritarian government wouldn't magically agree with every single opinion they had.

Whenever you speak to someone supporting absolute monarchy or totalitarianism or hard authoritarianism it is always incredibly clear that they think their idea of a beloved dictator or monarch would just randomly agree with them on everything.

>You realize that if a kid hits a man and man decides to murder the kid and all of his family its the man to blame for the death of the family, not the kid.

>this guarantees that a state doesn't fuck up too bad.

>elected Trump
>only had any real option between Hillary and Trump in the election

>not a fuck up

holy kek

The US is an authoritarian oligarchy rather than a representative democracy. It's hardly an example of a functioning democratic state.

>implying it would work better in a functional democratic state when Trump was the populist backed candidate while Hilary was the oligarchic backed candidate

This

The only reason anybody would ever logically support a dictator is if that dictator was an idealized perfect being

Anglos

This.
>muh democracy
>muh parliamentarism
>muh individualism
>muh strong rulers are bad
Well Anglos and frogs, although frogs did love authoritarianism under Napoleon who served as a role model for many dictators.

>dude just do what i say lmao

Augustus Caesar

The US is the current world leader, and they have a fetish for their kind of democracy which they want everyone else to share. Since 1917 they want tp submit the entire world to democracy, no matter how unfit it is for some cultures.

Plus there's all the bullshit that happened because of dictatorships and during the fascist times.

...

And so do dozens of other people with competing viewpoints, and none of that "access" is secondary to the grand goals of Getting (Re)Elected and Accruing Power. You don't BUY politicians, genius: you rent a timeshare, and with Hillary, you're probably renting a week even WITH millions and millions of contributions.