"Mao Tse-tung did nothing wrong"

*points at tumblr*

>I can't read file names

He means murder, theft, tyranny and all manner of wicked evilness is a-okay by him. This is because he's a sociopath.

How is tumblr leftist? They're just slightly radical sjw liberals

You do realize we're talking about the man who, to this day, is adamant that literally every negative thing the Khmer Rouge did was a forgery by the CIA, right? Even Pol-Pot's confessions to intentionally murdering a third of his country's population.

The man's a kook. There's a reason no one takes him seriously in academia.

Liberalism is leftism.
>inb4 b-but muh classical liberalism
Everything that rejrcts the natural aristocratic rule is leftism, muh modes of production is just irrelevant autistic shit.

based Deng

>Jew
>American
>communist
>sissy effeminate faggot
How can you not hate the guy?

>Liberalism is leftism
"lol"

Tell me what you think leftism is.

>Using the pre-french revolution right = monarchists, left = literally everyone else terminology

Autism

Answer the question.

Muh computer languages mans hot wiff quick mafs, faam

No. Stop having retarded political convictions and then I'll take you seriously

He can't because he's a retarded "not real communism" kind of lefty.

Really? Outrageous if true. Source?

>enemy of the state.

How is aristocratic rule natural?

lol fag

Trrue.

I'm sensing anger

Because some people are better than most people and it is therefore prudent for the better function of society, that those people be allowed to pursue their visions and command the otherwise directionless demos to that end.
Since skill and talent is a cause of blood and upbringing it would therefore stand to scrutiny that the greatest talent/skill comes from giving the best blood the best upbringing.

It existed for as long as we're recording history, and only in the last 200 something years people started seriously challenging the idea.

>and only in the last 200 something years people started seriously challenging the idea.

>Being this much of a clueless Monarchist brainlet

Well... I do have an erection right now. Make of it what you will.

>lefty bourgies savagely murder real monarchist right wingers
>200 years later
>LOOK AT ME, I'M THE RIGHT WING NOW
Wishful thinking Shlomo

Athenians limited the vote to only certain people.

even modern "democratic" republics still have an aristocracy. the only thing that has changed is that it is a slight chance that anyone could work hard or luck out and join the ruling class.

>HURR when people mock me for being a moron, it means theyre angry DURR

No, you dimwitted faggot, it means we're mocking you for being a moron.

And who is to determine who is better prepared to rule over society? Why don't you volunteer to subject yourself to an aristocrat's criterious rule? It's easy to praise aristocratic rule from the comfort of a liberal society?Furthermore, why should I believe that someone descending from someone talented to rule will share that talent?

>Athenians limited the vote to only certain people.
So that means they weren't challenging aristocracy how?

>aristocracy means rich people
This is your brain on leftism

I think you might need to chill out a bit bud.

>Because some people are better than most people and it is therefore prudent for the better function of society, that those people be allowed to pursue their visions and command the otherwise directionless demos to that end.
>Since skill and talent is a cause of blood and upbringing it would therefore stand to scrutiny that the greatest talent/skill comes from giving the best blood the best upbringing.

No, that's a lie

mobile.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-truth-about-chomsky/2779086

money buys power and power gets you money.

aristocracy is also a looser class definition than nobility.

rich and or powerful people's children get wealth and power easier themselves.

So something existing for long makes it natural? Really makes me think.
So when aristocratic rule began, I assume it wasn't natural for at least 200 years according to the criteria you'vr shown.
Also, why should I consider the presence of aristocratic rule natural and not its demise?

if only a certain class of people get to make the decisions. Then they're the ruling class.

with universal suffrage. then the ruling class are those people that can exert the most influence over the masses or their elected representatives. which is usually done through money and control over the 4th estate.

No pedigree = not aristocracy. It's just a shitty oligarchy. Sorry Shlomo but your daddy's tax fraud money don't mean you get to LARP as a baron.

>leftist mental gymnastics

Just because they're the ruling class doesn't make them the aristocracy.

Epic rebuttal

>expecting proper rebuttals to nonsense

I'm afraid you got btfo my little monarkiddie friend ;)

No I didn't, but you can pretend I did if it makes you feel better.

>And who is to determine who is better prepared to rule over society?

Natural selection is an obvious answer but at this point you're implying that we're heading away from discussing a "natural" system and going into the territory of an "ideal" system.

>Why don't you volunteer to subject yourself to an aristocrat's criterious rule?

Afirementioned natural selection gives me a fighting chance to establish myself as a land owner. I have the vision to do so. And since I do submit to the laws of the land and generally obey my betters, I see no contradiction here.

>It's easy to praise aristocratic rule from the comfort of a liberal society?

I've lived in many societies. "Free" makes expression anonymously about as easy as "authoritarian" society.

>Furthermore, why should I believe that someone descending from someone talented to rule will share that talent?

Ecenomy of interdependance.
Without the caputalist the worker could rarely if ever run shit.
Without the worker the capitalist is forced to build on his own but with the added detriment of a horde of unimployed rabble blaming him (and each other) for their problems.

You see, the aristocrat is like the capitalist in that they need plebs under control as much as the plebs need to be put under control.

Its a mutually beneficial relationship.

You got rekt so hard you couldn't even formulate a response. Don't pretend

Oh ho ho well you sure proved me wrong.
Good show, user. Good show, indeed.

I like how he assumes where you live, and presumes ignorance.

>dude what if I told you rejecting nature is the most natural thing lmao
>you lose if you don't reply with an elaborate rebuttal #rekt #btfo
Yawn.

>Oh ho ho well you sure proved me wrong.
>Good show, user. Good show, indeed.

you're thinking of nobility, peerage.

aristocracy is simply the ruling class.

for the greeks. when the democracy failed. they let a group of the best of their society continue to rule.

the romans had the patricians

from the dark ages till ww1. it was nobility/peers/gentry

early US, it was land owning european males.

now modern republics. it is the people that fund the politicians and control the media.

>aristocracy is what Karl Marx says it is

>not being an aristocuck = rejecting nature

but that is the literal definition. nobles who have hereditary claims to power are aristocrats, but not all aristocrats have hereditary positions of power.

So the president of the united states is an aristocrat by your definition? lmao

If this place wasn't periodically flooded with nazi LARPers it would warrant a, "The absolute state of Veeky Forums."

>leftist bourgies stage a revolt against the aristocrats
>aristocrats get killed, leftist bourgies are in charge now
>those bourgies who get left out of ruling get buttmad and claim the ruling bourgies are actually aristocrats
This is how communism was born.

This recipe... it needs another dash of Jew.

>communists replace the bourgeoisie
>now party members are the aristocrats

yore welcome

The bourgeoise were often Jews because rejecting Christ cucked them out of ever being aristocrats, and their only way of getting power was by hoarding money.

Oh, how foolish of me, now that I think about I guess you might perhaps naturally you'd be the enlightened aristocrat, kek. You've already got the owning land part of the equation at least, how's your ruling over the plebs going? Did natural selection already give you such faculty?
Also, I wonder how you determine who are your betters.

Christians won't allow themselves to do certain necessary roles in society. though they allow jews to do it.

>usury
>necessary role

Oh, I thought they got into the money businuess after they were outlawed from owning land due to their early practice of pursuing land and trade monopolies.

No, he simply explained why traditionalism is a specious argument.

>le Christians are at fault for Jews being evil cunts maymay

how else do people get capital quickly?

They shouldn't.

Get back to me when you've regained your mental footing and are somewhat more coherent.
Don't take too long though.

I must go make money soon as is customary in this foreign land.

that's a great way to stagnate your economy or depend on the State for economic development.

>Jews prohibited from owning land
>Christians prohibited from lending money
>Some Jews lend money to make a living
There's a clear fucking progression here

In what way?
The jews disrupted the economies of their host nations and naturally incurred the ire of the populous. The ruling monarchies responded to the temporary benefit of their people and banned the jews from owning land and commodity.
After a period of development the populous thought themselves the equals of their monarchs and their monarchs (due to inbreeding) were degraded and thus it set the stage for modern republicanism and the creeping jewish influence on currency.

>could've became farmers or soldiers
>no, we need a less hardworking vocation, like robbing people blind
Jews in a nutshell

how can they be farmers if they can't own land?

standing armies were rare until the modern era. the only people that were soldiers full time were nobles, retainers, guards, and mercs.

>DUDE THE CAMBODIAN GENOCIDE IS JUST A LIE MADE UP BY THE CIA!

>DUDE INTELLECTUALS ARE BAD, EXCEPT FOR ME!

>DUDE MAO WASNT THAT BAD

>DUDE THAT WASNT LE REAL MARXISM

Why do people still take this faggot seriously?

>Soldiers
This proffesion os only honerable in the service if ones own nation. Even so, it us ghastly uncivilized work.
>farming
One must have some measure of interest in the land. Even peasants ultimately got something out of it. But the jews would have been reduced to serfdom and thus logically refrained.

I suppose a goid job wouldve been some skilled trade like carpentry but this would only service an internal market considering a public distaste for buying jewish products.

Why do you still take that shit about Noam seriously?
It's been proved wrong in the thread already.

99.9% of farmers in the middle ages were peasants or serfs who owned fuck all. Jews as freemen could've became free peasants living on subsistence if they didn't abhor manual labor.

Come now, there are 14 million jews in Israel right now are you really purporting that they are mostly living by just loaning each other money?

Jews actively pursued labour intensive work at first, effectively trying to settle, build and own completely the lands they found themselves in.

Have a nice day, enlightened lord. And don't forget to give the plebs their daily potato and corn ration.
I'm sure if you tell people the benefits of aristocratic rule, they will see your enlightened wisdom and not laugh at you.

These plebs don't realize that
>If aristocrats rule, it's clearly natural selection at work
>If they don't hold power and other people do, clearly this is antinatural

>Have a nice day, enlightened lord.

Since it isn't snowing, I likely, will.

>And don't forget to give the plebs their daily potato and corn ration.

In this relatively developed society, the peasants no longer want of food and are instead found to be lacking of a constant visual and audiological entertainment.

>I'm sure if you tell people the benefits of aristocratic rule, they will see your enlightened wisdom and not laugh at you.

This is actually a perfect rebuttal to an earlier comment of yours on whether or not it would be easier in a liberal society to sing the praises of an aristocratic one.

It turns out even you can recognize that the bulk of ignorance comes from the generally disdordered clamouring of the masses and not the personalized censorship of a calculating regime.

>And don't forget to give the plebs their daily potato and corn ration.
How about you grow them yourselves for once, rabbi?

By the way, I've had discussions on the alleged benefits of aristocratic rule and I'm stunned at the notion of aristocratic rule being natural and the simultaneous difficulty of swaying dumb plebs to abide by aristocratic rule, at the notion of owning land as if this made somene or got him closer to being an aristocrat, at the notion of bragging of the money one makes (more reminiscent of new money than aristocracy to me), at the notion that when an aristocrat holds power it's natural selection at work but when other people outsmart them and make more money or rule over people this is somehow unnatural, at the vague explanations I've seen on the criteria to determine who the 'betters' are and why a talented man's son should be trusted to be as talented as his son. You perceive me as incoherent, I see some contradictions and and vagueness in the arguments and some notions espoused by people in favor of aristocratic rule I've seen so far, not only from you or this thread but from what I've heard so far.

By the way, I've had discussions on the alleged benefits of aristocratic rule and I'm stunned at the notion of aristocratic rule being natural and the simultaneous difficulty of swaying dumb plebs to abide by aristocratic rule, at the notion of owning land as if this made somene or got him closer to being an aristocrat, at the notion of bragging of the money one makes (more reminiscent of new money than aristocracy to me), at the notion that when an aristocrat holds power it's natural selection at work but when other people outsmart them and make more money or rule over people this is somehow unnatural, at the vague explanations I've seen on the criteria to determine who the 'betters' are and why a talented man's son should be trusted to be as talented as his father. You perceive me as incoherent, I see some contradictions and and vagueness in the arguments and some notions espoused by people in favor of aristocratic rule I've seen so far, not only from you or this thread but from what I've heard so far.

Look, pro-aristocratic user, I've had discussions on the alleged benefits of aristocratic rule and I'm stunned at the notion of aristocratic rule being natural and the simultaneous difficulty of swaying dumb plebs to abide by aristocratic rule, at the notion of owning land as if this made somene or got him closer to being an aristocrat, at the notion of bragging of the money one makes (more reminiscent of new money than aristocracy to me), at the notion that when an aristocrat holds power it's natural selection at work but when other people outsmart them and make more money or rule over people this is somehow unnatural, at the vague explanations I've seen on the criteria to determine who the 'betters' are and why a talented man's son should be trusted to be as talented as his father. You perceive me as incoherent, I see some contradictions and and vagueness in the arguments and some notions espoused by people in favor of aristocratic rule I've seen so far, not only from you or this thread but from what I've heard so far.

This post: was meant for you. And I'm not a leftist, I'm a Libertarian.
Anyway, good luck with your aristocratic utopia.

Libertarianism is leftist.

They literally could not have you dumbass, unless they converted to Christianity which many did but others considered cultural suicide

He's actually anti Marxist, which means he's still wrong but from the other direction

>natural aristocratic rule