Anarchists

...

They can't. What predated all current governments?

>anarchy

*due to
fucking typos

I am what you would call anarhco-socialist or imdivodualist.

nothing

...

Sage goes in all fields

>ANARCHY IS AUTISM

>I CLAIM THIS THREAD IN THE NAME OF THE GOD-EMPEROR OF WHITE MEN DONALD J TRUMP, FIRST OF HIS NAME, ELECTED MONARCH!

motion seconded. Trump wins. bread is now about maga.

...

Fuck off back to your containment board autist

>cooperation and coordination
Why are you under the impression that an anarchist society would just be a bunch of isolated hermits living in the forest?

Cooperation and coordination happen far more effectively without a government boot on everyone's throat.

[citation needed]
All evidence of places with little or no government clearly shows people entirely shit the bed. Tons of evidence of free markets (North Sea fishing, anyone) decimating their common resource against everyone's actual interests, and never coordinating to the point of self-agreeing on regulations or controls, that ultimately governments had to enforce.

You can meme rhetoric about "government boots on throats preventing *true* cooperation" but the evidence for the claim simply isn't there.

Ancaps pretty much start the conversation by defining themselves to be right
>something goes well
>look how great the free market is, imagine how much better it would be with no gubmint
>something goes bad
>look how shit the gubmint is, imagine how much better it would be with no gubmint
Until you stop using these """"arguments""" no-one outside your corporate (or more likely, edgy teenager) groups will take you remotely seriously.

Not on my board!

A more concise form of my objection here is that ancap claims about either the responsibility of government or the superiority of deregulated systems are unfalsifiable.

>common resource
There's your problem. Under 99% of circumstances, this wouldn't be a problem for things happening on land. Private ownership incentivizes the defense of property rights and the formulation of systems and practices to preserve them. Privately-owed fish stocks would not be subject to overfishing, just as private forests are never overlogged.

It's obviously difficult to divide oceans into parcels of property, which is why it still hasn't been done in our statist systems. While this is a valid attack on anarchism, it doesn't lend statism any more credence.

The other, main form of cooperation I was referring to was the economy. People buy and sell according to their individual values. No outside source could possibly determine what a set of individuals values more than themselves, because people inherently act in their perceived economic self-interest. By definition, the individual is more qualified to know what he'd rather spend his money on than the state. He is more qualified to know which laws should exist than the state. He is, as far as his life is concerned, more qualified to make ALL decisions.

To deny this is to go down the road of self-contradiction.

The free market is nothing more than people buying and selling things WITHOUT violent coersion. The government necessarily uses violent coersion to grant authority to everything it does. When we talk about the "success" of the free market, we are referring to any success stemming from people's interaction with as little government interference as is possible. When something "goes bad", we are referring to that very government interference.

If X murders Y, anarchists don't blame the government. If X starves to death because his government nationalized food production, we absolutely blame the government.

>ancap claims about either the responsibility of government
That's because they are normative claims, just like statist justification for the government. If we are dealing with ethical arguments, it becomes (evidently) a subjective matter. If we are dealing with practical arguments, it's difficult for anclaps to cough up counterfactual evidence because statism was and continues to be the norm for most of human history. All we can do is draw illustrations from relatively deregulated markets, while also noting the effects of what regulations still exist in those markets.

>No outside source could possibly determine what a set of individuals values more than themselves, because people inherently act in their perceived economic self-interest. By definition, the individual is more qualified to know what he'd rather spend his money on than the state. He is more qualified to know which laws should exist than the state. He is, as far as his life is concerned, more qualified to make ALL decisions.
This is a fantasy but it takes quite some effort to debunk.

Not only do people generally not have a harmony between "what they actually want" and "what they think they want", nor are they even anywhere near as rational or informed about the purchases he makes as any economist pretends people are; even when acting in perfectly rational self-interest, the coupling of this self-interest with "gives good consequences" is a very, very fragile thing.

This is something I would like to go in great detail on but in the meantime might I suggest you read the following (admittedly) lengthy blog post which goes most of the way towards making the points I would.

Forgot the fucking link. slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

The US Constitution is an anarcho-communist compact to vest the collective of the state wjthin the people thereby rendering moot the issue of private property. As the people are the state and their individual agency represents the will of the state, the state collective then owns all property and production as do the people. Being that individual agency, minimally restricted by vested agents of the people/state in good sense and with established rule of law thereby vested from the people, is the height of the state's power, any infringement of individual agency can be said to deface the authority of the state.

Anarchy serves the Republic, the Anarchy is the inherent safeguard of the Union.

>The free market is nothing more than people buying and selling things WITHOUT violent coercion.
No-one can refer to resources and services essential to survival as being trade-able "free of coercion" in a principled way. There comes a point where you have to accept whatever is on the table otherwise you die. And the very existence of advertising absolutely destroys any hallucinations people might make about coercion, which while you might try to sidestep by only claiming to care about "violent" coercion, seems to blunt the very usefulness of the objection in the first place.

>The government necessarily uses violent coersion to grant authority to everything it does. When we talk about the "success" of the free market, we are referring to any success stemming from people's interaction with as little government interference as is possible. When something "goes bad", we are referring to that very government interference.
Defining government as "violent coercion" is just weasel words that preach to the choir but have no purchase with people not yet convinced by the purist ideological rhetoric. And you seem to have missed the objection entirely, because we /know/ you're only referring to the "free" aspect of good things, and the "government" aspect of bad things, and we're /calling you out/ on doing it despite any and all surrounding context.

>statist justification for the government
Labelling anyone who disagrees with a hardline libertarian position a "statist" is only divisive and suffers the same choir-preaching effect as phrases like "violent coercion" and "theft". See the attached image, a citation from an article I'll undoubtedly link in a later post, for a better explanation.

ITT: edgy 13 year olds

Gommunist here, but I like you

Before I get to reading that novel of a blog post, let me point out that the
>people don't know what they want so we need governments to tell them what they should want
argument is inherently contradictory. Governments are made of people. If people cannot be trusted to make "correct" economic decisions, how can they be trusted to make those same decisions for others? And if there exists a special breed of human who can make rational decisions, it stands to reason that the system of government that they institute cannot be a democratic one. If people cannot be trusted to decide what is good for them, they cannot be trusted to judge the qualifications of any politicians.

Secondly, we must be careful not to fall into the fallacy of defining what "good consequences" are when speaking about other people's self-interest. It is only possible to know whether a particular economic decision was successful by asking the decision-maker after the fact. By definition, nobody is more qualified to know the "goodness" of the outcome than the one making the decision.

The summary of the image btw is "saying 'coercion', 'theft', and so on is trying to win the argument by describing actions with emotionally charged words which fit the definition of the action but deny the relevant context".

>began anarchist utopia
>get instantly conquered by the nearest neighbouring state
wew lads

What a naive fucking child. I really hope you're shitposting, leaf.

"anarchists"

Destroy governments to create a society that cannot exist without a government enforcing the fairy-tale.

>argument is inherently contradictory. Governments are made of people. If people cannot be trusted to make "correct" economic decisions, how can they be trusted to make those same decisions for others? And if there exists a special breed of human who can make rational decisions, it stands to reason that the system of government that they institute cannot be a democratic one. If people cannot be trusted to decide what is good for them, they cannot be trusted to judge the qualifications of any politicians.
The two quick arguments would be
>People make better decisions when they know they affect everyone and everyone affects them, than when they think they're independent, i.e. requiring the consequences of cooperation is the very thing that gets people to act in useful cooperative ways
and
>Having politicians whose job it is to live and breathe politics, to specialise in the field rather than every single person have to do that /on top of/ all the other shit in their lives, is just as reasonably expected to give better results as for any other specialisation

These are things which are addressed (much better than me trying to summarise it) in the monumentous blog post. Or if not there, in another post by the same author "Why I hate your freedom". raikoth.net/libertarian.html

Scum

...

>Secondly, we must be careful not to fall into the fallacy of defining what "good consequences" are when speaking about other people's self-interest. It is only possible to know whether a particular economic decision was successful by asking the decision-maker after the fact. By definition, nobody is more qualified to know the "goodness" of the outcome than the one making the decision.
I think this objection is best addressed, in short, by focusing less on the absolute generality of "no human being is identical" and instead on the fact that "there are certain needs and preferences that all human beings do actually have". Things like food, water, shelter etc. which are almost non-issues in developed countries with governments, and huge issues in underdeveloped countries with less invasive states (either by lack of will or ability) - which has indeed also not yet been solved by the participants in their markets. (And of course, blaming their governments anyway is just begging the question, and even if you disagree on that you still probably have to come to the terms with the fact that it isn't going to convince anyone not already convinced.)

This is also covered in responses to objections 10 and 21 of the Utilitarianism FAQ. lri.fr/~dragice/utilitarianism/faq.html

The vocabulary gets a bit 'specific' at points so it might be necessary to read in order to be able to understand the points being made.

...

...

>There comes a point where you have to accept whatever is on the table otherwise you die
This is fallacious, because human mortality is not an integral part of economic interaction, but rather an integral part of humans as an organism. When you are in the middle of the woods, you must either work to find food, water, shelter, etc. or else you die. There is no coersion involved, unless you want to claim that "nature" is coersing you.

Similarly with property that is "essential to survival". The fact that someone else possesses it and you do not does not, in fact, constitue coersion under any functional definition of the term. If you define a refusal to trade as active coersion, then the word becomes nonsensical.

I'd continue, but every goddamn time I start a decent discussion on Cred Forums I get called away to do something. Shit fuck cunt niggers.

>No-one can refer to resources and services essential to survival as being trade-able "free of coercion" in a principled way. There comes a point where you have to accept whatever is on the table otherwise you die.

"In a principled way". You are too good for that kind of language.

Listen, I understand what you're saying: if you're trapped in vacuum, is selling oxygen to you coercive? Yes. The implication being, you need resources to survive, and making you purchase your own survival is hardly voluntary.

And that's exactly why you're wrong. You're not trapped in a vacuum. You need calories to stay alive, you need shelter from the elements, you need medical care? You have the freedom to seek and obtain the necessary materials to live. You're not trapped anywhere. What you're saying is that other people are obligated to provide these "services essential to your survival". It cannot, and will not ever be the case. No one will ever have as much stake in the value of your life than you. No one can be ever be more responsible for your life, and the state of your life, than you.

> existence of advertising absolutely destroys any hallucinations people might make about coercion, which while you might try to sidestep by only claiming to care about "violent" coercion, seems to blunt the very usefulness of the objection in the first place.

Advertising is coercion? If that's the case, don't pretend to care about free association. You're saying sex is rape. Please.

> Anarchism is a semantic argument / purist ideological rhetoric / preaching to the choir

You don't think there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary, of course it's a semantic argument to you. You apparently are a puppet controlled by the whims of advertisers.

> when a leaf makes you proud

You're not so bad after all, Canada. I'm sorry about your healthcare.

Statists, get out. The success of the American experiment is directly related to self-governance. The ultimate and inevitable extension of self-governance is individual sovereignty in a stateless society.

Anarcho - individualist, though i have fashy undertones to my beliefs.

>There is no coersion involved, unless you want to claim that "nature" is coersing you.
Says the person that in their other breath would talk about solving commons-coordination problems by privatising the commons? "Nature" might not coerce the starving, but the property owner of that woodland has no reason not to.

>Similarly with property that is "essential to survival". The fact that someone else possesses it and you do not does not, in fact, constitue coersion under any functional definition of the term. If you define a refusal to trade as active coersion, then the word becomes nonsensical.
I get the feeling you're coming at this from an ethical system in which people either "have rights" to do things, or don't. I wouldn't argue in those terms and, would instead reference the fact that the more of a resource you have, the less value each unit of that resource has to you. If you already have enough X, let's say 10 and someone else has none, and people only need 1 X to live, I very quickly come to the conclusion that in terms of the actual value the resources have to you, you have much less to lose by giving up 1 X than they have to gain 1X, and so the ethical course of action is for it to be given. In this extreme case I am also compelled to conclude that the overall state of affairs is better /even if you strenuously object to the removal of that 1X and cite an "inalienable right" to have as much X as you please/. Obviously when the differences are less things are less simple, but we already have in the real world plenty of scenarios where the /actual utility/ summed over all people could skyrocket by a coordinated reallocation of resources, a coordination which *has not happened under its own spontaneous order*.

>anarchy
>then family
>then tribles
>etc

>You need calories to stay alive, you need shelter from the elements, you need medical care? You have the freedom to seek and obtain the necessary materials to live. You're not trapped anywhere. What you're saying is that other people are obligated to provide these "services essential to your survival".
>Just world fallacy
If you're going to claim "I say sex is rape" or "I am a slave to advertisers" then I don't see why I can't just present your position here as "all poor people deserve it, they should have just worked harder" instead of giving a nuanced deconstruction of why reality gets in the way of your nice-sounding claims about the human condition.

...

...

>cites country with a state as evidence of why countries without states are the best possible
Even if you can't demonstrate any non-shit stateless countries to have ever existed, can you even show using a non-meme "define yourself to be right" metric that shows a clear "less state is better" trend.

Hardmode: trend must be statistically significant, and inconvenient examples from modernity or history cannot simply be cherry picked out.

Anyone using the "extra flags for Cred Forums and Cred Forums" userscript should notice a distinct irony in the colours of my finest-grain location flag.

>88

Obligatory Page 8 Bump.

> Just world fallacy

Just world fallacy says "everything that happens to you is your fault", and it's not. Having cerebral palsy isn't someones fault, it's not that they didn't work hard enough. All poor people don't deserve it, some people got shafted. Who is responsible for these people? Me? No. Who would provide assistance to these people? I would.

If you steal bread from a bakery to feed your children, is that theft? Yes. You should have asked for it. You took it from the baker involuntarily. You can't justify theft with need, and you can't compel charity. The best way for providing for people (no just world fallacy, life isn't fair) is by allowing individuals to make their own choices.

> nuanced deconstruction

Don't give me this 'nuanced' shit. What I said doesn't imply a just world, so trying to say I am not 'nuanced' enough for you is just a lazy insult.

Less state is always better. No nations with real systems of negative rights existed before America, is that an argument against negative rights? No.

Krautfriend, I do think minimal states and stateless societies are more effective, and there are some arguments to be made there. But I'm going to skip that.

Because even if they WEREN'T better, they are the only moral choice. You are saying something analogous to "can you demonstrate that agriculture even survive without slaves? give me an example of a tobacco-producing country that doesn't have slaves". Yes, it would be done even better (it forces you to make the cotton gin and stop using free labor as a crutch), but more importantly, that's not a good reason to have slaves.

You said advertising is coercion, which is saying sex is rape.

...

>You can't justify theft with need, and you can't compel charity. The best way for providing for people (no just world fallacy, life isn't fair) is by allowing individuals to make their own choices.
I simply disagree. I don't think that the "right" to not be stolen from is a concept with infinite utility or with ontological relevance. Rights are useful shorthands, but I accept them not as "absolutes" but precisely for their usefulness, and reject them on exactly the same terms.

So no, I absolutely will justify "theft" with need, at least in the cases of clear marginal value asymmetry between the "property" in question. I acknowledge the "taking things is wrong and we call this theft" shorthand only when the taking is actually wrong.

>Because even if they WEREN'T better, they are the only moral choice.
We definitely do have entirely moral systems. To me the very idea of saying something is the "moral choice" if it isn't "better" makes your moral system absolutely useless, and frankly complete gibberish. What on Earth is the point in saying something is "the right thing to do" if by any and all real measure it is in fact not?

This is an impasse.

I unironically believe that we would all be better off if we bombed ourselves back into the Stone Age. Hit the reset button. Just about every problem facing humanity can be traced back to there being too goddamned many people and us being too intelligent for our own good.

Why not just bomb Africa and the Middle East?

>You are saying something analogous to "can you demonstrate that agriculture even survive without slaves? give me an example of a tobacco-producing country that doesn't have slaves". Yes, it would be done even better (it forces you to make the cotton gin and stop using free labor as a crutch), but more importantly, that's not a good reason to have slaves.
This is not analogous to what I was saying, for many reasons. But I'll try not to digress too much.

The analogy only holds if I would support "ability to produce tobacco" as being a sufficiently good metric of the "good consequences" I'm trying to optimise for. What I would actually claim is that the slaves' quality of life is substantially lower than those who benefit from their labour, and that in accordance with previous arguments about marginal value, the better status for the system to be in is that the slaves get to count equally to the owners (and thus not be "owned), *despite* the objections of "but I have the 'right' to own these slaves".

I see the point you're trying to make, and in terms of "proving that X can be better without Y is impossible because we never did X without Y" is a valid point in and of itself, but to stop there is to deny all the context (I'm starting to get bored of having to say this phrase) of what X I'm trying to optimise for, and what Y we're considering a necessary requirement to that end. My ethical philosophy is X = welfare of all people summed together, not X = tobacco production, and if Y = "we need to be able to own slaves" it's can be shown to be in direct contradiction to X by acknowledging the slaves as human beings and subject to the same contribution to "overall welfare" as the owners and those that benefit from the slave trade.

I understand completely what you are saying. The bread theft represents an almost inconsequential inconvenience to the baker, and a near-infinite value to the father of hungry children. Charity does not need to be coerced for precisely this reason.

Who benefits most or who loses least -- guess what, it's not up to you. It's not up to you to make these determinations of which acts of coercion are justified and to what degree. *Clear* marginal value? Stop it.

You are the one who gave me "in a principled way", but you what you really mean is "there are no principles, everything is relative". You are giving me a flavor of moral consequentialism (the ends justify the means), which is far beneath you. You know why consequentialism is wrong, I don't feel like I have to explain it to you.

Please don't tell me you just tried to say that if the welfare of all people summed together (X) was dependent on MORALLY_ABSURD_BEHAVIOR_HERE (Y) it would be ethically justifiable. That's a level of Machiavellian moral relatavism I don't think anyone could stand behind. Especially not someone as well-versed in philosophical rigor and truth-proving as you. No one who knows what an ontology is.

I've really enjoyed talking with you. Hit me up via email because I'd like to skype you.

[email protected]

The kind of "the ends justify the means" you're talking about is just another attempt to poison the well, because it's clearly(!) not just the ends according to one maniac, where side consequences of said means are somehow excluded from the evaluation of the "ends".

You can say "it's not up to you" until you're blue in the face but the fact remains that there is a wide class of properties relevant to essentially every human being that have essentially identical worth to each human being (food, water, shelter etc).

Consequentialism is as far from "moral relativism" as you can get - precisely because in honest, non-naive implementations it is the very same thing, human welfare, for all humans, being considered to be the thing you actually want. You might interpret it as "relativism" because it doesn't lead to one consistent set of "set in stone" rules to follow in all contexts, but since "rules to follow in all contexts" as a notion with any "absolute" usefulness is rejected explicitly, this isn't relevant.

I linked the Utilitarianism FAQ earlier in the thread, I really would recommend reading it, because it doesn't actually seem as if you know what it really is or what you're arguing against.

And to go back to the Charity point; I'm sure I don't need to bombard you with peer reviewed journal papers on behavioural psychology and the almost never-ending pile of cognitive and perception biases humans are prone to. People act charitably in "trolley problem" style artificial situations, but in the "real world" we're (for example) much more likely to be convinced to give to charitable causes with single, relate-able faces at their front, than with higher numbers of suffering individuals referred to just by number.

"Welfare" is defined to mean a specific thing in utilitarian and consequentialist literature, you *definitely* should read that FAQ (lri.fr/~dragice/utilitarianism/faq.html) before you make a knee-jerk reaction.

>Please don't tell me you just tried to say that if the welfare of all people summed together (X) was dependent on MORALLY_ABSURD_BEHAVIOR_HERE (Y) it would be ethically justifiable.
This is literally what I am saying. I deny the very idea of something being "morally absurd" if it actually does produce a net increase in welfare. Moral systems defined separately from or in absence of the consequences of the actions we're trying to guide seems to be the absolute epitome of missing the point.

>I've really enjoyed talking with you. Hit me up via email because I'd like to skype you.
I will do, man. I won't do it right now, as the e-mail account I would use (for privacy reasons) happens to be having issues with their server right now. But I'll get an intro email into my Outbox, and you should get it as soon as the server stops shitting the bed.

I don't use Skype (gahnoo+loonix user), but maybe we could later share Tox IDs or something?

Pic unrelated.

I have to run but I only want to say that my reaction to this kind of relativism is not a knee-jerk reaction. And, I am well aware that I am arguing against utilitarianism, and being told I don't know "what it really is" or "what I'm arguing against" is another lazy insult. I haven't disparaged you once.

Peer-reviewed journals and behavioral psychology. I think behaviorialsts will agree is that ultimately people respond to incentives and punishments. This is why welfare states, in my country and around the world, are the cause of enormous detriment to populations of people in need.

I understand that you are saying Y isn't morally absurd if it has a positive effect on X by definition. I just can't believe that you would advocate that.

Woh. Tox IDs? I need to get with the times. And I'll be looking for your mail. :)

pic unrelated.

>and being told I don't know "what it really is" or "what I'm arguing against" is another lazy insult.
When I say *this* I'm definitely not trying to insult you! I honestly mean that your use of "relativism" doesn't map (in any way I'd consider useful) to what utilitarianism and consequentialism say or how they work.

>This is why welfare states, in my country and around the world, are the cause of enormous detriment to populations of people in need.
There are lots of strong arguments, many of which I've myself made (or at least tried), against "welfare states", but this doesn't correspond well to what the word "welfare" is used to mean in these philosophical circles, which I keep hinting to and is covered in the link ~

In a sense it's absolutely true that people respond to incentives and punishments. But the big mistake I'm willing (admittedly absent of wider context of what else you do know about the field) to accuse you of making is stopping prematurely, and not fully taking into account the cavalcade of biological incentive structures we have (recall the experiment of the monkeys being splashed with water ultimately beating each other up for it despite having been progressively replaced so no monkeys who ever experienced the splashing even remain, or the countless things we will do to trigger neurochemicals in our heads regardless what else happens) - and so I would essentially argue that while incentives and punishments can /to a point/ be harnessed, we have much more to gain by understanding them and *bypassing* them in favour of what we all actually want or need.

>When I say *this* I'm definitely not trying to insult you! I honestly mean that your use of "relativism" doesn't map (in any way I'd consider useful) to what utilitarianism and consequentialism say or how they work.
Maybe it'll just be quicker if I quote the FAQ on this point:

>Is Utilitarianism a form of Moral Relativism?
>No, Utilitarianism has nothing in common with Moral Relativism. Moral Relativism states that all moral standards are equally valid. Utilitarianism claims that all values and preferences are equally valid, but it claims that only a single moral standard is valid (the Utilitarian standard of utility maximization). Morals and values are different. A value is something that is considered to be a good thing. Values are preferences, desires, goals, and so on. A moral is something that one ought to do. Utilitarianism says that the morally best thing to do is to promote everyone's values (by maximizing welfare), with all values treated equally. Many other ethical philosophies say that morality consists of promoting only some values, or promoting some values as more important than other values. Moral Relativism says that there is no morally best thing to do at all. It says that all moral standards are equally valid (or invalid), and thus that the truth of morality is entirely relative to the perspectives of each individual. Utilitarianism is strongly opposed to Moral Relativism, because it supports a single, straightforward and comprehensive system of morality intended to be applied universally.

>I understand that you are saying Y isn't morally absurd if it has a positive effect on X by definition. I just can't believe that you would advocate that.
Morals are supposed to be "oughts". If we're not putting "has a positive effect" into the "ought" category, I start to question whether we have any idea about what the words "positive" or "ought" mean.

If you're just talking about things being absurd in an intuitive sense, this is also addressed (funnily enough) in the FAQ. It's even the first objection they address! But I'll try to boil it down into a simple tl;dr: the success of the scientific method at making useful predictions about the real world is absolutely undeniable, and there is a long, long, long, consistent trend of those predictions flying in the face in our intuitions. The usefulness of the predictions we now make, and the sheer quality of their correspondence with reality, care not one jot for whether or not our "intuitions" are satisfied. So when trying to work out a moral system, it shouldn't be surprising to get predictions in contradiction to our intuitions - indeed, we should expect it (!), because it is the very fact that our intuitions have been insufficient that drives us to try to work out moral systems in the first place!

What type of mentality does a person need to have to fall for the ann meme?

Africa is just stagnating and taking up space. To be honest I wish we knew their secret to being so incompetent. A more chaotic planet would be a start, but that's a fantasy. Like I said, we have more ingenuity than we know what to do with. Outside of Africa, not even perpetual war will suppress that.
Asteroid impacts are our only hope.

...

National Anarchist welcome?

>we're never welcome
>people confuse nation with rulers

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

He's run the numbers

My mom told me I couldn't go on Cred Forums until I finished my algebra homework, FUCK THAT BITCH!!1! ANARCHY NOW! NO MORE BEDTIMES! NO MORE SCHOOL!!

...

...

This thread is hereby annexed by the sovereign state of Canada. God save the Queen.

By forcing immigration of savage googles. They aren't capable of such things. It's instant anarchy.

...

...

...

...

...

All the real Anarchist have food stamps......

put some yellow on that

>Depicting Europe as a white female when they are the primary reason for it's destruction