Fashwave and propaganda thread

...

...

>he thinks "fash"wave is art
>

...

Who?

If you've got fashwave or nationalist videos/images feel free to post them on
jimmyrustler.com/. It's the "other" imgur.

Better yourselves anons, it's the only way. Society will follow.

>Rights aren't given
>Picture of George "rights are granted by God" Washington
???

>Better yourselves

The other option

I guess it wasn't a libertarian who made the picture. Imagine that, on Cred Forums nonetheless

...

He took them from the Brits, so that counts

You don't understand the philosophical concept of rights as the founding fathers understood it, lol. That's okay, don't think about it too much.

There's a few hundred fashwave pics here:
politicallyincorrectbase.com/results/?tag=fashwave

The founding fathers were mistaken. Ragnar Rebeard was correct.

...

...

That just means that Washington would have disagreed with the statement, not that the statement is untrue, nor even that Washington didn't prove it to be true.

...

A right is something which is justly defended or taken, it is an ethical and moral question. You're showing the same misunderstanding that someone who might say "might makes right" has. It's not a question of possession or what you can seize. It is a question of property; what justly belongs to who.

Rights are man-made. As are property and justice. Might can be right in the short run, but, ultimately, in the long run everything that is considered right is merely what survives. Which is why we must survive.

I see, you share the same view of morality as the leftists. That is to say, there is no good or evil. So be it, but the founding fathers would still disagree with the fagwave they were put into

Fascism brought me in touch with my sexuality

>there is no good or evil
Aye, I'm with Nietzsche. Christianity was fantastic in the past, but it lead us into our current predicament. It can't extricate us from it. We need to create new values for our less skeptical people to accept as absolute truths.

Might literally make right, but for sustainable might you need to take moral questions into account.

Humans have very refined senses for "fairness", as shown buy the Wason Selection Task
philosophyexperiments.com/wason/

Sorry, I'm failing to see how that logical reasoning test impacts upon "fairness"? Or even why you are bringing up that concept?

>Sorry, I'm failing to see how that logical reasoning test impacts upon "fairness"?

Did you look at your results and the explanation at the end?

>Or even why you are bringing up that concept?
Because it's part of what we call morality.

>Did you look at your results and the explanation at the end?
Yes. But again, how does a logical reasoning test have anything to do with morality? Maybe Sweden's problem is that you equate fairness and morality far too much. As far as I can tell, the modern conception of fairness is far removed from morality.
Bottom right of pic. seems coincidentally appropriate to what I'm saying.

the tests shows we have an innate ability to tell when someone is cheating that is separate from our normal logical ability. Thats what I meant by "fairness". We have other (less libertarian) moral instincts as well, such as disgust and compassion.

that vid is actually dope

It grows on you

Ok, so we have instinctual moral preferences. I'm down with basing a new morality on evolved preferences. I just have issue with the notion that everything comes from a God. Ultimately, morals come to us just as much by an evolutionary process as our bodies do. The problem with Payley's watch argument is that both the watch and the designer are the result of randomness and natural selection, of genes expressing themselves in an environment.

I'm here arguing that might makes right, not some theological argument

Does anyone have the old photo of the guy from the 'make love & defend europe' poster where he is facing front smoking a cig?

Oh, my bad. I guess we don't really disagree, at least on anything important. Have a Nige