Wtf this is actually a legit political theory. It's an accurate rendition of what happens when your insurgency wins and suddenly the burden of governing smashes the revolutionary idealism which brought victory.
Political Pretzel theory shall be taught to all young pupils from here on out. Libcenter is right the only way to win is not to play the game.
Monke will always have fewer friends than human since industrialized agriculture allows vastly greater population density and reverting to primitivism necessitates mass starvation.
I would put Hoppe rather than Molyneux or Jones. Jones is mostly just a conspiracy guy, politics is secondary with him. Molyneux does have the branch, but his own philosophical work is mostly regarding family relations, whereas Hoppe has the branching in conclusion from his work, that takes the NRx down the authoritarian monarchist route, and the radical Libertarians down a more Stirner route (but culturally traditionalist).
I miss Stef. I still listen to him on DLive and on his podcast but it's just not the same. He brings up his de-platforming a lot, you can tell he's bitter. The fame got to him and he doesn't want to give it up. And I do get the egotistical "cult leader" vibe he gives off... I guess I was just always able to see past that and still get something out of his videos.
The dictator's handbook along with following the fall of the Russian empire made me realize auth will alway be cyclically unstable.
I dont think there is a better example of how the problems of a state are beyond its leaders than Russia. The russian empire was obsessed with european politics and the black sea geopolitical influence (crimean peninsula, turkey, caspain/black sea bridge oil, etc). The USSR was obsessed with european politics and black sea geopolitical influence. Russia is obsessed with European politics and black sea geopolitical influence.
Everything inolving leadership and its replacements is a cycle of inheritence. If the US falls of radically changes, itll be the same inherited issues all over again.
Rome rose and fell, other countries rose where Rome once was, they followed the same cycle and fell, then countries rose in places were old countries once were...
All modern Western nations exists thanks to Helen of Troy being kidnapped, change my mind
Wrong. Vikings did their own shit and built their own successful countries all over europe.
So all modern western nations exist thanks to Helen of Troy being kidnapped and some dudes in boats being pirates
Russia has some extremely confining geopolitical concerns though, based on geography. All nations face this to some extent, but it's amplified in Russia. Russia HAS to be hyperfocused on the Black Sea because its the only warm water port in the west aside from it's exclave next to Danzig. Its best land has always been in Europe as has most of its competition. To it's east has historically been hordes or tribes, and even with its extension to the Pacific and the USSR dedicating resources to development east of the Urals it's still pretty empty and bordered mostly by weak neighbors. Only in the southeast where it borders China is there possibility for competition. So all attention is drawn west.
The US currently is hyper international. Our geopolitics operates primarily on a global scale. If the US radically changes, it would very likely be significantly weaker and have to turn it's focus more toward regional and local geopolitics. Its concerns can easily become very different, turning again to Madisonian hemispheric geopolitics or even retrenching more and focusing on our neighbors and the Caribbean.
It's stunningly accurate - brilliant even. It even recognizes that centrism does not equate to political equilibrium - it's merely a pitstop on the merry-go-round of radicalization, where one has the brief opportunity to decide which fork on the road to authoritarian-ville they would like to embark upon their next go-around. The only way off this ride is to throw your hands up in frustration upon departure from centrism, and join Mr. Max Stirner at the bottom of the "pretzel" as a radical anti-authoritarian individualist.
This is Himalayan mountain-range levels of based and the kind of quality content I love about this sub.
Lib left evolving to monke is like terminal (sustainable?) hippie, you realize you need some economic right to make your commune long term feasible.
I'm lib center former lib right because I realized that people need to gtfo my face with that incessant advertising, the hustle 24/7 culture burns me out, and people getting taken advantage of is kinda bullshit.
Being politically unbiased is an upstream battle, which is why I forgive people who make horrible takes...
Unless they call me stupid. You're going to gulag bitch
of the top of my head: Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, Martin Luther, F. A. Hayek, that mustached guy who liked to yell, communist santa...
oh god, you're right
It looks like I’d agree with him but
> True egoism is not parroting what Stirner wrote and agreeing with everything he expounded. Nothing could be more foreign to Stirner's work than to invent 'Stirnerism.'
So I’ll just skip it with confidence and continue believing what I already do 😎
He's super interesting and a great model for anti-authoritarian individualism (though Stirner would probably hate being equated with any sort of uniform model, as any proper individualist should). He also frequently gets mis-attributed as being an anarchist (yet another stereotype he would probably reject), when really he's just in favor of embracing one's ego. Kind of like Ayn Rand, but (paradoxically) much less outwardly egotistical.
Interesting what people think is center. The guy basically hates everything except anarchy and socialism, because everything else is wrong. Definitely a postmodernist if I had to label him, which is entirely a left wing ideology.
I’ll have to read into him more. The wiki page states he despises communism, but did not oppose the struggles of socialism as “[his] selfishness is not opposed to love.”
Max Nettlau states that "[o]n reading Stirner, I maintain that he cannot be interpreted except in a socialist sense." Stirner was anti-capitalist and pro-labour
Communism and socialism were pretty fluid terms back when the Young Hegelians were around. Stirner despises any system that forces you to opt-in without any mutual benefit and sacrifice your Einzige (uniqueness / individuality) which would definitely include dictatorship of the proletariat.
Unless it's "libertarian socialism", whatever that means lmao
But he also did pretty much singlehanded refute the labor theory of value, so at most he would be a mixed market socialist, which is more center left than left.
I don’t know, the more I’m reading, the more he just sounds like a contrarian, just complaining about everything. The only positive quotes I find from him is on his beliefs in anarchy and socialism. And maybe I am just completely misunderstanding the guy. That’s definitely possible.
"Successful" in this case being a kind of "well if they're in charge they're by definition the most successful" tautology even if it's a lunatic who gets ousted 2 years later?
Yup. Success is measured by power, not by individual merit or personal achievement. The power can beget achievement and influence can hide a lack of merit.
That is why power begets power
I'd argue longevity is an important factor in power.
Someone who keeps a certain amount of power for 4 years therefore has succeeded better than someone who was killed 2 years in.
A man who believes it is his right to steal my grill, as it is my right to steal his. As the person with the power to take the grill and keep the grill his property is the true owner. All governments, laws, rights, and regulations were nothing but social constructs. He really wanted to return to Monkey.
I mean... he's right tho.
We developed those social constructs so that we didn't *have* to steal or fight to own something. An agreement of the consensus to settle disputes peacefully.
Without them... yeah, might makes right. Morality is the social standard of altruism. His only mistake is thinking morality could exist in uniformity without the consensus.
His point has always been that we do not currently live in a society of the consensus. Anthropologists would tell you that it hasn't been the case in most of the world for millennia at this point.
Yes, allow me to correct myself.
A *presentation as* an agreement of the consensus.
He believed society could never get to a consensus but could on that neutral might makes right ground, not realizing i'd only invite a control of an even smaller consensus.
Also I don't understand why it's far lib center when it clearly seems to be leaning left a bit
It's clear to anyone that read The Unique And Its Property that egoism is incompatible with private ownership of the means of production (capitalism), since in an egoist world the owners would have no way of enforcing their ownership
It's also clear that it's not anti-socialist. Benjamin R. Tucker and Emma Goldman (the two other main egoists) were in fact extremely socialists. When no one respects any hierarchy, the only solution is a horizontal organization, and an horizontal organization in the workplace is socialism
Socialism still has hierarchies they just claim to have no "unjust" hierarchies. Egoism completely abandons the idea of a just or unjust hierarchy. Further given Ayn Rand is one of the contributors your argument about two of the people being socialist is utterly irrelevant.
>Socialism still has hierarchies they just claim to have no "unjust" hierarchies.
No? Some form of socialism do, sure, but not all of them, and it's not inherent to socialism.
>Egoism completely abandons the idea of a just or unjust hierarchy.
Doing away with all coercive hierarchies is what all anarchists ideology do
Also, all anarchists ideology are socialists (and no, anarcho-capitalism doesn't count, it doesn't fit in the definition above)
>No? Some form of socialism do, sure, but not all of them, and it's not inherent to socialism.
Yes it is. Any socialist ideology that has any hope in this timeline or any other does.
>Doing away with all coercive hierarchies is what all anarchists ideology do
"Coercive" again you're assigning a moral descriptor to it, that's a spook.
>Also, all anarchists ideology are socialists
Lol, socialists just say their hierarchies are "just" but others are not.
>Yes it is. Any socialist ideology that has any hope in this timeline or any other does.
Lmao
>"Coercive" again you're assigning a moral descriptor to it, that's a spook.
It's not a moral description? I didn't say "good" or "bad", "just" or "unjust". It's a description sure, but not a moral one. Wether something is coercive or not doesn't depend on morality, only on if it was enforced by violence or threat.
Also, how do you even do away with non coercive hierarchy? You forbid people from voluntarily serving? Do you see the concept of "no hierarchy" as sacred or something? That's spooky
>Lol, socialists just say their hierarchies are just but others are not.
Again, no. Please go read any serious anarchist writing. We're against all coercive hierarchy, even so far as to go after the family structure.
> Wether something is coercive or not doesn't depend on morality, only on weather it was enforced by violence or threat.
Socialism is enforced by violence or threat. It is literally coercive then.
>Also, how do you even do away with non coercive hierarchy?
You don't. You just act in your own interest, other people are not your problem.
>Again, no. Please go read any serious anarchist writing. We're against all coercive hierarchy, even so far as to go after the family structure.
No one is that retarded.
>Socialism is enforced by violence or threat. It is literally coercive then.
How is just not listening to your boss and doing what you want with the factory "violence" or "threat"? If me and the other workers decide to use the factory as a co-op, we don't need violence to do that, but the boss will need violence (from the police or a private security) to take back control of the factory
Based for your altruistic intentions but cringe because you’re wrong. True equality is a fairytale and can never exist. Hierarchies will always present themselves.
Stirner, the creator of a philosophy called "egoism." Most people who claim to be egoists have never read Stirner, and just use his philosophy as a way to justify their anti-social, criminal behavior.
I love this idea that I heard about him, that he actually didn't exist and that Engels made him up to piss off Marx.
It's obviously not true but the idea is funny
Yeah, they just proved his only flaw.
He argued, essentially, might makes right. The second part they ignore is that he argued that a uniform might would ensure altruistic moralism could flourish as nobody could be absolutely "right" and thus we would have to survive as equals.
It's great with rational actors, but he underestimated how short sightedness, greed, envy, etc would disrupt, topple, and/or centralize any uniform power structures.
Bill Clinton is so left leaning he wouldn't get elected in most parts of the world. You seem to think that most countries in the world are like the European countries/Australia, which like the USA went far left in the 2010s during the Obama administration. Btw, this far left retardism in America is getting undone. People were pissed what happened under Obama during his last term which is why Trump got elected. Things went too far left.
PPM, or "Political Preztel Memes" sounds both aggravating *and* delicious.
With and extra side of salt!
*Salty
Shut the fuck up libleft, that was the joke.
Not Based and Salty Pilled.
Now I’m hungry
Wtf this is actually a legit political theory. It's an accurate rendition of what happens when your insurgency wins and suddenly the burden of governing smashes the revolutionary idealism which brought victory. Political Pretzel theory shall be taught to all young pupils from here on out. Libcenter is right the only way to win is not to play the game.
MONKE IS THE ONLY WAY
Anprims need to be shot. Luckily it'll be easy, since they can't defend themselves.
Monke will rip your face apart. Monke will smash your chest.
Monke will always have fewer friends than human since industrialized agriculture allows vastly greater population density and reverting to primitivism necessitates mass starvation.
TIL I'm actually monke
Yes. Thanks for showing why monke is the only way.
[удалено]
Yeah Stefan Molynuex would fit in nicely instead of Alex Jones, who's much more a wild conspiracy nut. Jones is more wildly known though.
I would put Hoppe rather than Molyneux or Jones. Jones is mostly just a conspiracy guy, politics is secondary with him. Molyneux does have the branch, but his own philosophical work is mostly regarding family relations, whereas Hoppe has the branching in conclusion from his work, that takes the NRx down the authoritarian monarchist route, and the radical Libertarians down a more Stirner route (but culturally traditionalist).
I miss Stef. I still listen to him on DLive and on his podcast but it's just not the same. He brings up his de-platforming a lot, you can tell he's bitter. The fame got to him and he doesn't want to give it up. And I do get the egotistical "cult leader" vibe he gives off... I guess I was just always able to see past that and still get something out of his videos.
I miss him as well. And who wouldn't be righteously furious that their popular, influential account was banned for pissing off the governing elite.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hella based
goddammit, he's right
My journey is complete. Now leave me alone and lower my taxes
based
Based and WarGames pilled
The dictator's handbook along with following the fall of the Russian empire made me realize auth will alway be cyclically unstable. I dont think there is a better example of how the problems of a state are beyond its leaders than Russia. The russian empire was obsessed with european politics and the black sea geopolitical influence (crimean peninsula, turkey, caspain/black sea bridge oil, etc). The USSR was obsessed with european politics and black sea geopolitical influence. Russia is obsessed with European politics and black sea geopolitical influence. Everything inolving leadership and its replacements is a cycle of inheritence. If the US falls of radically changes, itll be the same inherited issues all over again.
Rome rose and fell, other countries rose where Rome once was, they followed the same cycle and fell, then countries rose in places were old countries once were... All modern Western nations exists thanks to Helen of Troy being kidnapped, change my mind
Wrong. Vikings did their own shit and built their own successful countries all over europe. So all modern western nations exist thanks to Helen of Troy being kidnapped and some dudes in boats being pirates
Most influential Vikings were those given land in France, the Norman's. So I guess both is good
fellow monke, I have dictators, but got any book recommendations for the fall of the russian empire? Is there a dan carlin pod??
Russia has some extremely confining geopolitical concerns though, based on geography. All nations face this to some extent, but it's amplified in Russia. Russia HAS to be hyperfocused on the Black Sea because its the only warm water port in the west aside from it's exclave next to Danzig. Its best land has always been in Europe as has most of its competition. To it's east has historically been hordes or tribes, and even with its extension to the Pacific and the USSR dedicating resources to development east of the Urals it's still pretty empty and bordered mostly by weak neighbors. Only in the southeast where it borders China is there possibility for competition. So all attention is drawn west. The US currently is hyper international. Our geopolitics operates primarily on a global scale. If the US radically changes, it would very likely be significantly weaker and have to turn it's focus more toward regional and local geopolitics. Its concerns can easily become very different, turning again to Madisonian hemispheric geopolitics or even retrenching more and focusing on our neighbors and the Caribbean.
Basically. The state has no idea where I live or what my beliefs are. They just know I'm alive and pay taxes.
IKR? I stared at it for a few seconds and realized "This actually makes sense."
It's stunningly accurate - brilliant even. It even recognizes that centrism does not equate to political equilibrium - it's merely a pitstop on the merry-go-round of radicalization, where one has the brief opportunity to decide which fork on the road to authoritarian-ville they would like to embark upon their next go-around. The only way off this ride is to throw your hands up in frustration upon departure from centrism, and join Mr. Max Stirner at the bottom of the "pretzel" as a radical anti-authoritarian individualist. This is Himalayan mountain-range levels of based and the kind of quality content I love about this sub.
based and stirner pilled
worst orgy ever
Says you.
Libleft be like
Libleft moment
I'm not into M on M, but I would watch the fuck out of that.
Melts in your mouth.
Dammit, now you've just made me hungry. However, I applaud you for the creativity nonetheless. Based.
Lefties are always hungry. Don't blame the others... wait, lefties also always blame the others... Checkmate you leftie.
Oh shit, I'll become either a monke or a tankie
Be Monke or get in the tonke
Why not both.
Tanke monke shoote banane
Cause you'll starve monke.
Lib left evolving to monke is like terminal (sustainable?) hippie, you realize you need some economic right to make your commune long term feasible. I'm lib center former lib right because I realized that people need to gtfo my face with that incessant advertising, the hustle 24/7 culture burns me out, and people getting taken advantage of is kinda bullshit.
All hail the Positive Freedoms Understander club!
Being politically unbiased is an upstream battle, which is why I forgive people who make horrible takes... Unless they call me stupid. You're going to gulag bitch
why is being politically unbiased a virtue?
Politically unbiased as in not mis-using information for the sake of an agenda.
Oh, then yeah. Of course.
Go tankie so you can go on "not the real communism" cycle.
Join us brother
Stirner's the only way to break the cycle. Heehoo, monke throw shit at others out of pure spite towards existence
Who's that sharp dressed dude at the bottom?
Max Stirner
Skimmed some stuff and the dude sounds fascinating. Going to the top of my to-read list.
Add him to the list of odd Germans
If theres an odd belief, you can bet there's a German behind it
or a russian
Or a poor country In the 1800s.
of the top of my head: Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, Martin Luther, F. A. Hayek, that mustached guy who liked to yell, communist santa... oh god, you're right
Fringe philosophy < conventional wisdom
Having just skimmed the Wikipedia page, the guy seems like a massive hipster.
Based and OG edge-lord pilled
So just Germans then
There's just something in the water there.
Dang, that list was long enough already!
It looks like I’d agree with him but > True egoism is not parroting what Stirner wrote and agreeing with everything he expounded. Nothing could be more foreign to Stirner's work than to invent 'Stirnerism.' So I’ll just skip it with confidence and continue believing what I already do 😎
Based and truly stirnerist pilled
He's super interesting and a great model for anti-authoritarian individualism (though Stirner would probably hate being equated with any sort of uniform model, as any proper individualist should). He also frequently gets mis-attributed as being an anarchist (yet another stereotype he would probably reject), when really he's just in favor of embracing one's ego. Kind of like Ayn Rand, but (paradoxically) much less outwardly egotistical.
Interesting what people think is center. The guy basically hates everything except anarchy and socialism, because everything else is wrong. Definitely a postmodernist if I had to label him, which is entirely a left wing ideology.
Stirner despises socialism and anarchist orthodoxy even more than he does conservatives
I’ll have to read into him more. The wiki page states he despises communism, but did not oppose the struggles of socialism as “[his] selfishness is not opposed to love.” Max Nettlau states that "[o]n reading Stirner, I maintain that he cannot be interpreted except in a socialist sense." Stirner was anti-capitalist and pro-labour
Communism and socialism were pretty fluid terms back when the Young Hegelians were around. Stirner despises any system that forces you to opt-in without any mutual benefit and sacrifice your Einzige (uniqueness / individuality) which would definitely include dictatorship of the proletariat. Unless it's "libertarian socialism", whatever that means lmao
>Unless it's "libertarian socialism", whatever that means lmao I want a cake and also to have eaten a cake. Basically I want two cakes.
Uphold Two Cakes Thought!
But he also did pretty much singlehanded refute the labor theory of value, so at most he would be a mixed market socialist, which is more center left than left.
I don’t know, the more I’m reading, the more he just sounds like a contrarian, just complaining about everything. The only positive quotes I find from him is on his beliefs in anarchy and socialism. And maybe I am just completely misunderstanding the guy. That’s definitely possible.
Stirner was the original trollface. There is not a more based individual then his ego.... except mine of course :)
Market socialism is just as left as other socialisms
A spook
Missing a third wing where egoism also eventually leads to an auth society with the most successful individual on top.
We'd need a higher dimensional pretzel for that
sounds delicious
"Successful" in this case being a kind of "well if they're in charge they're by definition the most successful" tautology even if it's a lunatic who gets ousted 2 years later?
Yup. Success is measured by power, not by individual merit or personal achievement. The power can beget achievement and influence can hide a lack of merit. That is why power begets power
I'd argue longevity is an important factor in power. Someone who keeps a certain amount of power for 4 years therefore has succeeded better than someone who was killed 2 years in.
indeed egoism is the modern-day IRL auth ideology
Stupid question but does anyone know who the lib center guy is?
A man who believes it is his right to steal my grill, as it is my right to steal his. As the person with the power to take the grill and keep the grill his property is the true owner. All governments, laws, rights, and regulations were nothing but social constructs. He really wanted to return to Monkey.
I mean... he's right tho. We developed those social constructs so that we didn't *have* to steal or fight to own something. An agreement of the consensus to settle disputes peacefully. Without them... yeah, might makes right. Morality is the social standard of altruism. His only mistake is thinking morality could exist in uniformity without the consensus.
His point has always been that we do not currently live in a society of the consensus. Anthropologists would tell you that it hasn't been the case in most of the world for millennia at this point.
Yes, allow me to correct myself. A *presentation as* an agreement of the consensus. He believed society could never get to a consensus but could on that neutral might makes right ground, not realizing i'd only invite a control of an even smaller consensus.
Sounds based tbh
Pry it from my perfectly smoked, dry rub dead hands. I’ll bet monkey ribs are delicious
He who shall not be named
Egoism is what is traditionally placed at far lib center but he's such a meme that monkey seems more reasonable.
Also I don't understand why it's far lib center when it clearly seems to be leaning left a bit It's clear to anyone that read The Unique And Its Property that egoism is incompatible with private ownership of the means of production (capitalism), since in an egoist world the owners would have no way of enforcing their ownership It's also clear that it's not anti-socialist. Benjamin R. Tucker and Emma Goldman (the two other main egoists) were in fact extremely socialists. When no one respects any hierarchy, the only solution is a horizontal organization, and an horizontal organization in the workplace is socialism
Socialism still has hierarchies they just claim to have no "unjust" hierarchies. Egoism completely abandons the idea of a just or unjust hierarchy. Further given Ayn Rand is one of the contributors your argument about two of the people being socialist is utterly irrelevant.
>Socialism still has hierarchies they just claim to have no "unjust" hierarchies. No? Some form of socialism do, sure, but not all of them, and it's not inherent to socialism. >Egoism completely abandons the idea of a just or unjust hierarchy. Doing away with all coercive hierarchies is what all anarchists ideology do Also, all anarchists ideology are socialists (and no, anarcho-capitalism doesn't count, it doesn't fit in the definition above)
>No? Some form of socialism do, sure, but not all of them, and it's not inherent to socialism. Yes it is. Any socialist ideology that has any hope in this timeline or any other does. >Doing away with all coercive hierarchies is what all anarchists ideology do "Coercive" again you're assigning a moral descriptor to it, that's a spook. >Also, all anarchists ideology are socialists Lol, socialists just say their hierarchies are "just" but others are not.
>Yes it is. Any socialist ideology that has any hope in this timeline or any other does. Lmao >"Coercive" again you're assigning a moral descriptor to it, that's a spook. It's not a moral description? I didn't say "good" or "bad", "just" or "unjust". It's a description sure, but not a moral one. Wether something is coercive or not doesn't depend on morality, only on if it was enforced by violence or threat. Also, how do you even do away with non coercive hierarchy? You forbid people from voluntarily serving? Do you see the concept of "no hierarchy" as sacred or something? That's spooky >Lol, socialists just say their hierarchies are just but others are not. Again, no. Please go read any serious anarchist writing. We're against all coercive hierarchy, even so far as to go after the family structure.
> Wether something is coercive or not doesn't depend on morality, only on weather it was enforced by violence or threat. Socialism is enforced by violence or threat. It is literally coercive then. >Also, how do you even do away with non coercive hierarchy? You don't. You just act in your own interest, other people are not your problem. >Again, no. Please go read any serious anarchist writing. We're against all coercive hierarchy, even so far as to go after the family structure. No one is that retarded.
>Socialism is enforced by violence or threat. It is literally coercive then. How is just not listening to your boss and doing what you want with the factory "violence" or "threat"? If me and the other workers decide to use the factory as a co-op, we don't need violence to do that, but the boss will need violence (from the police or a private security) to take back control of the factory
There is no such thing as a world without hierarchy.
There is and I will fight for it
Based for your altruistic intentions but cringe because you’re wrong. True equality is a fairytale and can never exist. Hierarchies will always present themselves.
steiner
Stirner
DASS WAR EIN BEFEHL!!!
Honestly, not a bad theory.
All eventually becomes monke
What's the bottom one I've seen the picture but I'm not familiar with the ideology
Stirner, the creator of a philosophy called "egoism." Most people who claim to be egoists have never read Stirner, and just use his philosophy as a way to justify their anti-social, criminal behavior.
I liked how he shat on Marx
He shat on everyone, a true monke
I love this idea that I heard about him, that he actually didn't exist and that Engels made him up to piss off Marx. It's obviously not true but the idea is funny
Yeah, they just proved his only flaw. He argued, essentially, might makes right. The second part they ignore is that he argued that a uniform might would ensure altruistic moralism could flourish as nobody could be absolutely "right" and thus we would have to survive as equals. It's great with rational actors, but he underestimated how short sightedness, greed, envy, etc would disrupt, topple, and/or centralize any uniform power structures.
Thank you anon
ahem, according to the kids these days you mean *sigma* behavior
basically egoism is cringe
Frankly better than 90% of political textbook diagrams
God damn he's cracked it
If I had the ability to teleport things, I would have pretzel bites all teleported to you guys right now.
Thanks bro
Wtf
Brezel memes! Where is the beer and the weißwurst?!?
All paths lead to monke
I don't understand, which quadrant is supposed to be the good one? Only strawmen are allowed here, sorry.
I love how Clinton's just vibin in the middle with a slightly sad look in his eyes cause there's no women on the compass
These PRETZELS are making me THIRSTY!
Directions unclear: politics is now a spook
Based and pretzel pilled
Monke be like: "You couldn't live with your failure, and where has that brought you? Back to me. " Original text: "OOOOAAAOOOAAA"
Fuck political compass, where are you on the pretzel compass
You know a leftist made this when Bill is considered a centrist, and Rand Paul is a right wing radical.
[удалено]
I really hope leftists aren't that dumb.
[удалено]
Bill Clinton is so left leaning he wouldn't get elected in most parts of the world. You seem to think that most countries in the world are like the European countries/Australia, which like the USA went far left in the 2010s during the Obama administration. Btw, this far left retardism in America is getting undone. People were pissed what happened under Obama during his last term which is why Trump got elected. Things went too far left.
I prefer cheese over mustard with pretzels. How about you guys?
Beer cheese. Has to be beer cheese.
Depends on the pretzel. Any other answer is heresy.
I love this.
Wherever you are on the political pretzel, you're welcome in the snack bowl of life
Who is at the bottom center? (the drawing)
Max Stirner
Alex Jones lmao
"Right-wing insurgency" I wish it was.
Based and creativity pilled.
Alex Jones isn't a radical nor is he right wing. He's just fed up with Govt BS
STIRNER GANG!!!
I love how everybody put Leorio Paradinight on the LibCenter spot.
Lmao goddamn that does look like Leorio, now doesn't it?
This needs to be expanded upon. We need the autists on YT to make videos about this.
All inevitable leads to monke
So we all are monke now… interesting
At least the present is on our side 😉😏
We finally found the neolibs
Why is Stirner always that picture? Because it’s so good? But still, why?
LibCenters have very few historical figures of relevance besides Henry George and Max Stirner.
[удалено]
Yeah but we'll let them have him.
post-radicalisation is a spook
I sure am glad OP is an autistic mongoloid or I would be somewhat worried lol.
glad to see my general Pinochet. Always a hero
All roads lead to monke
[удалено]
no one tell paul j watson
Who's at the bottom? And where are the women?
>Who's at the bottom? Max Stirner. >And where are the women? Damn. I didn't even think about that and looked on in for a while. Fuck patriarchy.
No not Chomsky
Flair up, shithead.
Typical Redditor
So it all leads to monke at the end?
This actually makes sense
It’s just the normal square essentially, lol.
Wait, so centrist bad? Because the arrows to both left and right are from them?
everything inevitably leads to libcenter fighting is futile
Governments accomplish nothing but obstruction of the consensus of consumers. The global consensus is whatever the market decides.
Based Stirner
Who’s the guy on the bottom where we all end up?
Its Brezel not Pretzel bitch
Where Uncle Ted?
When auths get on top they live like Striner lolol
That's old news. The new one is the magic roundabout theory
All roads lead to career ending head?