/fascist/ - Surf the Kali Yuga

Fascist and Third Position Discussion

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


/fascist/ is joining 16chan in the near future. Please stand by.


Ecofascism, Deep Ecology, Tech Critical Blackshirt 01/18/2021 (Mon) 01:10:11 ID: 69e04b No.19761
The old thread hit bump-limit. This thread is for the discussion of ecofascism, deep ecology and tech-critical thought and its connection to Fascism, National Socialism and White Nationalism. READING SUGGESTIONS >Technological Slavery by Theodore J. Kaczynski (2019 edition) >The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul >Industrial Society and Its Future by Theodore J. Kaczynski >Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How? by Theodore J. Kaczynski >Can Life Prevail? by Pentti Linkola >Man and Technics by Oswald Spengler >The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph A. Tainter Old thread archives: https://web.archive.org/web/20190804033752/https://8ch.net/fascist/res/13412.html https://archive.fo/XQMX7 https://archive.fo/XIUyd
Edited last time by FashBO on 01/18/2021 (Mon) 01:10:44.
>>22178 pretty much this. our current lifestyle is wasteful and, in the long-run, unsustainable. long before we exhausted all resources, we would crash ecosystems with our exploitation and garbage, which would have rippling effects everywhere. there's also Peak Oil, after which the fossil fuels we depend on would become unaffordable, crashing industrial civilization; this is bound to happen eventually if we don't switch to nuclear. keep in mind, one can be conscious of the environment and ecology without believing in the climate change lie, which is propaganda designed to advance the interests of globalism and further break down Western nation-states. in fact, the drumbeat of climate change drowns out many more valid environmental concerns, which is probably by design.
>>22187 There's no such thing as peak oil, petrol is continuously produced through geological processes, and most of the previously-depleted oil fields are already filled back to capacity. Even if we were to double our petrol use overnight, we'd just have to implement some form of deep-crust fracking to extract larger quantities. Nuclear, though, is always a good option. Just because we can get almost infinite pretrol, and the planet can deal with the CO2, doesn't mean we can. No-one likes breathing in smog.
>>22187 Exactly, the climate change narrative is all smoke and mirrors as far as I am concerned. Honestly my concern for it is so little that I have hardly researched it. What the globalists ignore is much what is actually far more destructive, such as deforestation, overpopulation, consumerism, noise pollution, highways, salinization, extinction of species (both Aryan and animal), etc. They might touch on it, but they are cucked by their politics and are in reality not seeking serious solutions because they want to solve the problem by selling wagecucks green-colored products and more-efficient vehicles that actually contribute overall to more energy usage. It's hilarious. Eventually though they may be forced to contend with some of these issues when it is too late, and their response to (((Covid))) should tell us everything we need to know. It would be like something out of the "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy" memes. You'd live in your pod, eat the bugs and have your jew-approved programming beamed right into your brain-chip
>>22226 I was under the impression that fracking etc only bought us time, and that we would hit a wall in the long run. I may have to look into this further. either way, nuclear is the best primary power source. >>22299 all this is true. climate science in particular is far from settled, in spite of what they may tell you. first of all, they're in the business of predicting the future of a complex system, which is never easy to do. more to the point, there are unresolved variables that call their narrative into question: natural oscillation, the carbon cycle, and albedo. the climate naturally shifts between warm and cold over various time-frames. in human history, there was the roman warm period, dark ages cooling period, medieval warm period, and little ice age (early modern era). during these times, the climate was alternately hotter and colder than it is today, and if you follow the pattern, we're due for a modern warm period. this could explain much of the observed changes in climate, without relying on anthropogenic causes. the carbon cycle is the process by which carbon dioxide is sequestered by plants and primary producers, locking it into the ecosystem; in other words, plankton and trees consume and fix carbon. releasing more co2 will help plants grow, directly offsetting the greenhouse effect. finally, albedo refers to reflectivity of the earth. warmer temperates generate more water vapor, creating more clouds. more cloud cover increases albedo, reflecting sunlight away from earth, and again directly offsetting warming. there are other points, such as the mesopelagic layer of the ocean containing more life than previously assumed (which ties into carbon cycle), but I've listed three major variables which lead to ambiguity. they claim that natural oscillation doesn't account for it, and that the carbon cycle can't keep up with our co2 output, but who knows. albedo in particular is an unknown, I've delved into the literature and they flat out admit they haven't worked out how it would affect their model. so as I said, it's far from settled, and climate change may not be a danger at all. in the meantime, we won't get any straight answers because this topic is thoroughly politicized, as the globalists use the narrative to consolidate power. >It would be like something out of the "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy" memes. You'd live in your pod, eat the bugs and have your jew-approved programming beamed right into your brain-chip aka slavery.
>>22638 And don't forget how they concentrate on CO2 emission at the expense of other pollution problems. At this point drinking from nearly any river is suicidal due to all the garbage and industrial waste they are releasing into them, but that's apparently fine. And then there are other issues, like how retards want to shut down nuclear power plants to replace them with ineffective renewable energy sources that have to be backed up by coal and gas.
>>22641 indeed. renewable energy is useful as a secondary power source, but it simply doesn't have the output/consistency to replace fossil fuels as a primary; only nuclear is viable for that. wind/solar are lacking in output, and they function intermittently, depending on when the wind blows, or how many hours the sun is up in a clear sky. besides, large arrays of solar panels or windmills can be disruptive to the environment, and require lots of rare earths as building material. while hydroelectric is very effective, it also requires damming a river; this severely limits potential locations, and causes its own ecological issues. only nuclear has the ubiquity, consistency, and raw output to become a new primary power source.
Open file (130.32 KB 599x495 the hydra.png)
Are there any other chans or forums with discussions on anti-industrialism and environmentalism?
>>23366 Yeah bro just get rid of any chance to defeat your enemies, I'm sure they'll see the light and meet you on even ground without bringing laser guided cluster bombs or anything like that.
Ecofascism and anti technology are bs unless you are willing to go war against countries who are not going to follow your anti tech ideology, because otherwise they will out compete you.
>>23434 But if you are anarchist firstly, there is no problem because you want anarchy that will solve the technological problem via collapse.
>>22641 >they concentrate on CO2 emission at the expense of other pollution problems At this point, the expense of all other environmental problems, because limiting consumption is bad for business. Case in point: the absolute farce that is the Sierra Club, on their website, lists Climate and Energy as the first issue to address, then rolls Lands, Air, Waters, and Wildlife into a single category, then finishes off with People and Justice
>>23415 Here is left anarchist anti technological news letter / article colletion: https://325.nostate.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/325-12-net.pdf These people are actually doing some real sabotage on electrical grid etc.
>>23434 You keep bitching about muh tech war and how much we need air planes and bombs n shiet to defeat other countries despite being the opposite case. Shut the fuck up and get over it. Futurism is fake and gay and is nothing more, but a cope for mutts who look by apperance as fucked up as trannies do and hope for acceleration of tech to change their DNA to make them beautiful. Your IP hops and asshurt is quite pathetic dude. You need to go away and hoping you're going to change our minds about eco-fash.
>>22641 >And don't forget how they concentrate on CO2 emission at the expense of other pollution problems Because Leftards complaining about climate change and global warming is fake and homosexual. There is no actual desire or motivation to change the issue out of love for nature, but only out of fear of the potential future they lie about or there are kikes who acknowledge the fact that this is a scheme to further ZOG and their plans to change or eliminate those who live a lifestyle that is incompatible with global homo.
>>23449 >IP hops Keep in mind that many ISPs don't offer static IP addresses, it's likely his IP changes on its own every few hours (or at midnight for some providers, they force restart routers and assign a new address). I'm somewhat in favor of anon's statement, we'll need some degree of technology for basic weapons and daily living shit like shaving razors and other stuff you don't normally think about twice. The problem is that the sheer scale and nature of this conflict will result in near-total loss of industrial capacity on its own. We'll be lucky if we still have steel processing in place after all is said and done, we might find ourselves starting more or less from scratch, and at that point we'll need to decide how much we want to rely on tech in the future. It's clear that this current approach of centralized industry is downright lethal the moment that industry goes away, we'll likely see 80% or so death tolls if the power alone goes out.
>>23415 This is why the collapse will kill everyone, but everyone thinks this way. It's natural though to think like this, and even Ted pointed it out.
>>23458 Some underdeveloped shit hole will not bring down the global technological system unless it starts global nuclear war. >Futurism is fake and gay and is nothing more I'm not futurist. I'm anti technologist who is not delusional about some eco fascist fantasy. Eco fascism can of course play a part if it's about getting power.
>>23543 >Some underdeveloped shit hole >I'm not futurist. I'm anti technologist No you're quite literally a retarded futurist thinking we're creating a "shithole", because we don't want to further fuck up our environments and keep the establishments of the kikes that lead to literal slavery. You aren't tech critical your a fucking kike, because no one calls something "underdeveloped" just because they want more trees and less shit in our ponds. Futurism is a dumbass meme that doesn't exist, and will only lead to furthering what the jews wanted in the first place. It's a mere fantasy from watching too much (((Star Trek))).
>>23543 >underdeveloped shit hole Why do you use progressive terminology if you are an anti-technologist? (((Development))) means being assimilated into the jewish web of banking, communication, transportation and globohomo
>>23543 >Some underdeveloped shit hole You sound like a kike, what's your definition of a shithole? The United States is a developed shithole with all the tech in the world. Even in Africa the most "developed" areas there are the most common of violence and generally the unhealthiest places to live than any of its rural settlements. Something not having le big pretty architecture and le rockets factories does not mean it's a shithole moron.
>>23543 I think you've cited the wrong post anon, probably the post I was citing and responding to, mostly in your defense. This will not, however, stop me from calling you a retard.
>>23560 >>23562 >>23558 It seems that you don't have any arguments and can't address the point I bring. Just pure ideological rhetoric without any rationality. >>23558
>>23615 We have arguments you just don't want to refute them. I asked you what is your definition of something being "underdeveloped" and given examples of why you shouldn't use globohomo terms to lie on what ecofascism. You're refusing to counter-argue what you meant and why I'm wrong on what I said and your post is simply incorrect, because ecofascism acknowledges the usage of tech to extents if you read Linkola and Ted, even they acknowledge the fact that technology is going to be needed. Also no one who is critical of tech, would use terms such as "shitholes" when referring to anti-urban beliefs. think you should come out and admit that you have sympathy with shitlibs.
>>23558 >>23560 >>23562 >>23632 It's one thing to not want to live in a big city, not have your daily life infested by distractions like television, cellphones, all those other things which largely are useless to the home life. What I'm really wondering though is what the plan regarding weapons would be? I mean, how are you going to deal with the gun, the aircraft, hell the ballistic missile is actually easier than all of those once you understand the technology. And all of those can exist with analog control systems if necessary, after all a ww1 biplane was a superweapon against the less advanced countries. Aside from factory casting and supply chains, very advanced technology can be very resilient against even the most thorough attacks on infrastructure, electronics, etc. Some weapons even negate the need for massive infrastructure altogether, if you're willing to go to the most extreme lengths physically and morally. Warfare is a sharply honed art, the most advanced and most powerful craft human beings have ever attempted. Weapon systems today are so far along that an entire bronze age civilization could be brought to its knees by a single SRBM company. If the circumstances are right, and if no greater technological power existed or cared about the conflict, a few years worth of HEU in very primitive devices would wipe something the size of sumeria from the face of the earth. I just don't see how you plan to close pandoras box. I know that if you knew you wouldn't spout it online anyway, so I'm not expecting a detailed answer, but I'm just confounded as to how you really plan to prevent any state that doesn't want to give up its technology from just brushing you off when you go after it. Remember that asymmetric warfare largely works because the "laws" of warfare have restricted the behavior of powerful states. If those are gone, people will be able to really just go wild in terms of dealing with spread out and hidden forces. For a state its better to lose an entire region if necessary, if the alternative is letting insurgents ruin your civilization.
>>23667 Pandora's won't be closed, that's the thing. This is precisely the problem that Ted has pointed out, i.e. that 'natural selection' favors those systems / groups which prioritize their short-term survival regardless of future costs more than it does those groups / systems which try to conserve resources and be stable long-term. The only way it will be gotten rid - and this wouldn't even be in total - would be for a massive global collapse combined with extremely depleted resources that would make producing, repairing and even using these things highly prohibitive for 99.9% of people. Slow global collapse is less of a fantasy than one would think due to the fact that the world is increasingly linked and interdependent and most nations are not even self-sufficient in the slightest. What happens in one place will effect what happens in another. The future, assuming total Great Reset hellworld is averted, will be a weird mixture of high tech and low tech, and the high tech will be present either to a tiny minority of the population, or will be scattered around the earth since most of it will be useless. Cities will be mostly empty and overgrown, populations having greatly declined in general and people not able to sustain themselves in concrete hellscapes in general due a collapse in supply-chains. Most likely this will happen very slowly over generations. And even if the jews get their Great Reset, it's likely that it will implode and collapse eventually.
>>19761 So, how do you guys think Ecofascism would manifest? What would a world that embraced Ecofascism look like, ideally, in your eyes?
>>23693 It would necessarily be top-down instituted, because it would almost impossible the masses to accept any of this, at least so long as they are brainwashed into the materialist consumerist mindset and the meme that more technology = good and progressive. They have to be deprogrammed from this mindset sooner or later though, otherwise it will be hard to keep order. Just look at how lemmings now go apeshit if you try to dis-incentivize certain things for environmental reasons today. Even the tiniest change preventing them from collectively destroying the planet enrages them. Linkola was right that this will have to be forced down their throats. >What would a world that embraced Ecofascism look like, ideally, in your eyes? It would be much simpler in many ways, more green, less people, more Nature.
>>23667 You do realize that technology is not the winning factor for wars right? Even if we needed tech to win, how would a milita of Whites ever be able to obtain access to things such tanks? Vietnam and Afghanistan have proven that asymmetrical warfare can indeed be effective along with the extensive usage of militias and guerilla warfare. The whole we need big tanks to win is a meme, because in the end you need proper equipment and brave dumbasses who are willing to die to win agaisnt an enemy who has advanced tech, which is one of the reasons why the US failed to save South Vietnam. Organization, morale and strategy are what win wars not bombing the living shit out of urban and rural areas. Footmen are still the strongest unit on the battlefield to this day.
>>23709 >Even if we needed tech to win, how would a milita of Whites ever be able to obtain access to things such tanks? Combined arms warfare is not the same thing as technology. The Afghanis had stinger missiles, IEDs, AKs, bullets casings and primers, and technicals. Plus an extensive bottom up supply chain to feed their war effort. So it's not tanks, but still a hell of a lot of technology.
>>23709 Technology alone is not the winning factor, but proper application of it is. Assymetrical warfare can be effective, but that doesn't mean it is always effective. Take the second Chechen war as example. One of the factors why assymetrical warfare works is that advanced armies restrict themselves. Vietnamiese commies would be utterly destroyed if US army showered the jungle with chemical weapons. I mean proper weapons, not agent orange tier. >Footmen are still the strongest unit on the battlefield to this day. Picking between modern infantry supported by armor, artillery, aircraft, recon and footmen with sticks and forks the choice is obvious.
>>23709 Even taliban uses advanced tech. http://c7hqkpkpemu6e7emz5b4vyz7idjgdvgaaa3dyimmeojqbgpea3xqjoid.onion/watch?v=uN9vGbneUlU >how would a milita of Whites ever be able to obtain access to things such tanks? If you can't produce tanks, you still can capture them as trophies.
>>23721 >Vietnamiese commies would be utterly destroyed if US army showered the jungle with chemical weapons. This is one of those dumb things boomers say to cope over their loss of the war. The Vietnam war quite literally failed because the United States could not gain any leverage over the Vietnamese due to their geography and the Vietnamese being way more organized in their own lands. Using chemical warfare wouldn't stop the Vietcongs from using gas mask or building tunnels to prevent themselves from inhaling the gas. >One of the factors why assymetrical warfare works is that advanced armies restrict themselves. No the reasons why assymetrical warfare is so effective is because it constantly uses surprise attacks and unpredictable movements that the opposition has a hard time grasping. Again you're being stupid and thinking like an American boomer who actually thinks that just simply bombing shit will win wars. >Picking between modern infantry supported by armor, artillery, aircraft, recon and footmen with sticks and forks the choice is obvious. Where did I ever say that dude's with sticks and forks would be able to win again you're being retarded. >Even taliban uses advanced tech Most of the Taliban does not use that advance tech, most of them are still using shit that came from WW2 and the cold war, just like Vietnam. Advance tech is only used when it's needed, but I don't see the Taliban using modern industrialism to fight.
>>23713 Afghans had very few of you're stating, so you're not making a point. Most of the equipment they used was still outdated the usage of advance tech was not the reason why they won. >>23721 >Vietnamiese commies would be utterly destroyed if US army showered the jungle with chemical weapons. I mean proper weapons, not agent orange tier Do you not understand the consquences of using chems? If the US used shit that could kill entire off villages then that would lead to Vietnam being political victorious and condemn the United States as the world's villain, which would be really bad if any of the Western allies and neutral states decided to help North Vietnam fight agaisnt the le fascist America. Also you're forgetting the reason why the United States fought there in the first place and it was to occupy and have the South Vietnamese as become the sole Democratic, unified state in Vietnam. Using any weapons of mass destruction on Vietnamese bases and villages would lead to everything being killed off and destroyed the agricultures and surrounding environments there which would of been a disaster for anyone who lives where the gas has been dropped and lead to Vietnam to possibly becoming a shithole for a couple years. I can't see how you're pro-nature, but also think the US should of killed the environments there just to kill some commies who aren't even a threat to the US or (((democracy))).
>>23727 >most of them are still using shit that came from WW2 and the cold war Tech from 80 years ago is still advanced tech. The Taliban is using gas piston automatic rifles, smokeless powder cartridges, grenades, rockets, ICE vehicles with advanced suspension systems and powertrains. All of which is fabricated by or templated upon precision machinery. Without relatively modern technology and the supply chains to feed it you're fucked in a war against an industrialized enemy.
>>23727 >Using chemical warfare wouldn't stop the Vietcongs from using gas mask or building tunnels to prevent themselves from inhaling the gas. You have no idea about chemical warfare if you think gas mask is enough. Let them dig tunnels and sit there for weeks unable to do anything above without full protective suit. Let them burden their logistics with suits, decontamination kits, antidotes and mask filters. Let them have decreased infantry performance because of constant suit wearing. Let them heal blindness, mustard gas burns and neurological damage. Also it's a good weapon to ruin any Tet offensive's day. >No the reasons why assymetrical warfare is so effective is because it constantly uses surprise attacks and unpredictable movements that the opposition has a hard time grasping. These things are not unique to asymmetrical warfare, they're valued in mobile warfare in general. >Again you're being stupid and thinking like an American boomer who actually thinks that just simply bombing shit will win wars. Sometimes simply bombing shit has major influence on the war's outcome, sometimes not. If you believe you can win by NOT bombing, shelling, exploding your enemy you're retarded. >Where did I ever say that dude's with sticks and forks would be able to win again you're being retarded. For anything other than sticks and forks you must have either industry or outside source of industrial goods. >I don't see the Taliban using modern industrialism to fight. History of modern industrialism starts more than a century ago. They might not have their own, but they use products of someone else's industrialism. WW2 era weapons are pretty industrial. Regarding infantry equipment most of it can be dated, but have no significant disadvantages compared to modern equipment. I second this >>23735 >>23729 >Most of the equipment they used was still outdated the usage of advance tech was not the reason why they won. Still that equipment was not seriously lagging behind its counterparts used by their enemies. We're not in a situation "smooth-bore musket vs rifled musket" here. However would Taliban fall behind by a few centuries in weapon technology, no amount of asymmetricity would help it. >Do you not understand the consquences of using chems? You seem to start getting to the point of this. What I want to say is because the politicians have to play their optics, for advanced armies it's not victory by any means while for asymmetric adversary it is. Asymmetric warfare is not superior form of warfare and does not guarantee victory by design. >some commies who aren't even a threat to the US Spreading of commie ideology is a threat.
>>23709 >You do realize that technology is not the winning factor for wars right? The winning factor for wars is not technology because most fighting forces exist at the same technological level, more or less. The reason wars like Vietnam are lost is bad tactics. We fought in useless fucking hills and villages when the most important part of warfare is holding cities. Due to the modern world-police soft empire dynamics of modern warfare, superpowers don't fight countries to annex their land so it's very hard to actually "win" in a tangible way. >Organization, morale and strategy are what win wars not bombing the living shit out of urban and rural areas. Footmen are still the strongest unit on the battlefield to this day. You're correct, but you're just describing technology being used right versus technology being used wrong. A foot soldier with a mass produced battle rifle is worth as many spearchuckers as he has rounds and stamina. Also keep in mind that the most effective use of the foot soldier in modern warfare is to police areas after a major air and armored victory, and clear out remaining dissidents on the ground. But the path is usually cleared by air strikes and artillery strikes first, which is what you're not being shown when you see footage of stronk U.S. marines charging into a compound in Iraq. >Even if we needed tech to win, how would a milita of Whites ever be able to obtain access to things such tanks? A militia alone will not be able to win. Historically, I don't think a successful insurgent war can even exist with the backing or takeover of a state. I don't want to say too much, but the only way that we will ever make a stand is with the resources of a state of some kind. This would be hard, and may be very improbable, but I believe it is the only option with a chance of success at all. The independent band of rebels that successfully defeats a major power doesn't really exist in reality. Without the support of an established people, whether that people is an outside state, a military in revolt, or perhaps a disgruntled and unified population within a defined region, you can't really do anything other than commit individual terrorist attacks and hope the government doesn't start rounding you up in camps.
>>23841 Individual terrorist attacks would probably be enough to defeat a major power. You don't need to match their means and resources, you just have to bring them down to your level. Make economic, industrial, and administrative processes either impossible or extremely expensive to maintain (due to security details and repair) and eventually they won't be able to maintain their army or keep the population docile. When either of those happens (likely both at roughly the same time) your lone terrorist turns into a regional leader as the public turns away from the crumbling government and to competing militants that can provide protection (or lack of terror at the very least) and basic sustenance. This obviously only works when you have multiple individuals or cells acting independently, but you don't need a huge number of insurgents to create the environment for further expansion.
>>20886 bicyclist used to hand wave when passing each other similar to how motorcyclist wave, in a way it created acknowledgement that we are all riding together on the road and a sense of community that you really can't with a car. The only issue is that a lot of people who have DUIs or suspended licenses will ride bikes to get around.
>>23878 >bicyclist used to hand wave I see bicyclists still do this, at least ones who ride on the road and not on a sidewalk or designated path
Open file (133.50 KB 602x486 wef.png)
I am not versed in the subject, but I just stumbled on this (((WEF))) post, pic related. What is the ecofascist opinion about it? Is (((WEF))) full of shit as usual or do they have a point?
>>23944 I find it misleading in this case, since it doesn't account for other factors like population growth. However, bank telling is relatively straightforward and well-established.
Open file (43.88 KB 920x525 ClipboardImage.png)
>>23944 It's disingenuous, as one would expect. ATMs are quite often found in different places than where bank tellers are located, such as in a grocery store or a mall and are used primarily stuff like cash withdraws more than anything else. They're much less you can do with them than with a banker teller, and in many ways they occupy a different niche. I wouldn't consider this quality research of course, but even just look up "bank teller" on Wikipedia and see the diverse amount of responsibilities that bank tellers deal with in their jobs, most of which an ATM just can't do. Also: >The number of tellers in the United States increased from approximately 300,000 in 1970 to approximately 600,000 in 2010. Counterintuitively, a contributing factor may be the introduction of automated teller machines. ATMs let a branch operate with fewer tellers, making it cheaper for banks to open more branches. This likely resulted in more tellers being hired to handle non-automated tasks, but further automation and online banking may reverse this increase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_teller
>>23944 >>23959 I accidentally submitted my post too early, but I forgot to say that this won't hold for every job either, if they start automating stuff like trucking, cashiers and a lot of similar stuff it will absolutely decimate the amount of people holding these jobs.
Open file (318.84 KB 1920x1080 Texas vs shitstain.png)
>>23944 Ultimately most jobs today are just private equivalents of a bread line being propped up by boomers who refuse to get with the times. In America alone 1/4th of the working adult populace is unemployed (210 million working-age adults, but only 150 million actually employed), and if you count underemployed individuals, that jumps to almost a third of working adults. If you include working age teens who are intuitively a significant part of the employed population, the statistics get even more abysmal. Automation can accomplish one of four goals: >1) It can make a worker more productive. >2) It can lower the skills threshold of a worker so you can pay them less to do a job. >3) It can "replace" a worker. >4) Safety. Most people assume that anyone talking about automation is talking about #3, but nine times out of ten the goal of automation is #1 or #4, with #2 being a side-effect. #3 rarely happens to a job unless said job was already, as I mentioned earlier, a job equivalent of a bread line. I'm neither directly eco-friendly (my ethics about being environmentally friendly begin at property rights and end at pollution being lost profits) nor am I a fascist, but overall I believe all four forms of automation benefit society as a whole so long as you work from the mindset that wealth can be created and/or destroyed rather than being an absolute. #1 makes workers more productive which allows a company to produce better results which is in turn a betterment for one's fellow man. #2 while unfortunate if you're the guy affected by it (I've been in that boat), encourages innovation and frees up capital for other ventures, while opening up the labor pool to get into your industry (assuming you don't import third worlders instead of hiring the local populace). More importantly #2 is usually a side-effect of #1. #3 is usually the result of outside interference (whether by the government or foreign actors) making a business unprofitable and forcing the switch to automation unless, again, it's a breadline job that is obsolete. #4 is typically a return investment to one's bottom line since the main industries it affects are those that are inherently dangerous like mining or fishing. The question of automation should be rephrased as a sub-question of immigration. Automation is inherently ALWAYS better for a population as a whole if the population size is allowed to naturally increase and decline with only minimal immigration where absolutely necessary (no "we hire Mexicans because Americans won't work for pennies a day" shit, I'm talking actual shortages where companies are offering six figures and can't get anyone to fill the position because there's no one to fill it, and it needs to be accompanied with training programs to encourage participation in said industry). The current issues in our modern work environment with automation have to do with the fact that countries have fallen for the infinite growth meme, and they can't let their local populations naturally decline to stable levels since that topple the pyramid scheme of throwing one's debt onto the next generation. Thus, when people aren't fucking because they can't afford to raise a kid (if they can even afford to take care of themselves), countries import immigrants and pass the buck off to fears of automation when the reality is the automation has little to do with the unemployment rate as a percentage of the population and it's usually the immigrants who are taking 'er jerbs.
>>23978 Thank you for your exhaustive explanation.
>>23978 Redpill me on why a high inflation rate is good.
>>23978 >#1 makes workers more productive which allows a company to produce better results which is in turn a betterment for one's fellow man You assume that companies are working towards bettering their fellow man, as opposed to maximizing profits. Planned obsolescence is a prime example of why this statement is false.
Open file (189.77 KB 2357x831 HHH laying a beatdown.jpg)
>>23983 In the broadest sense (I know this will be misinterpreted), inflation and deflation don't matter unless they're directly manipulated by outside forces such as a federal reserve or reichsmark system. At that point inflation is good when you expect population growth as it allows for more purchasing power and more competition in the labor market, and bad when you expect population decline. Most countries fall for the infinite growth meme though and thus we've only seen inflation globally since the 30s outside of occasional market stabilizers (recessions/depressions) that were ignored by chugging more of that economy-killing juice that jews love so much. Purchasing power parity is the only metric that really matters, and more production tends to lead to better purchasing power parity with increasingly specialized division of labor due to automation taking advantage of economies of scale. >>23985 >You assume that companies are working towards bettering their fellow man On the contrary. I assume that the profit motive has to benefit one's fellow man unless the company has been granted a state-sponsored monopoly. There have only been two natural global-spanning monopolies since the 1900s that I know of. The New York Stock Exchange (that became state-sponsored after the Great Depression which was really just an economic reassessment prolonged by FDR for political gain), and the Diamond industry (which is only so because of trade secrets combined with being an extremely niche industry- it is currently threatened by the artificial diamond industry that has been increasingly eating into their bottom line for commercial diamonds). I've already typed a long enough post on this subject, but it ultimately comes down to two factors: >You have to provide a good or service that is better or cheaper than your competition to turn a profit >You can't have your officials influenced by something if they aren't in the business of regulating it Companies, specifically state-sponsored monopolies (who also happen to be jewish), are almost always the financiers behind government regulations to "protect the workers" or "protect the industry." In reality they want regulation to keep out competition that offers a better/cheaper product or service. Licenses are the worst offenders (Doctors used to be a lower-middle-class profession in America who had to underbid for fraternal society contracts before the AMA got involved, you can see something similar in virtually every licensed trade). I'm not saying it's always roses or that companies won't take underhanded means to generate profits (it's possible to steal wealth from others just as much as it's possible to generate or destroy wealth). I'm saying the selfish profit motive is not the root cause of the problem with companies. Companies self-regulate all the time. The National Fire Code/National Electrical Code were completely privately agreed to standards that most of the tradesmen it affected would follow up until the 80s when states and feds began mandating it. >Planned obsolescence is a prime example of why this statement is false. It doesn't exist outside of niche areas like John Deere products and Apple. Making shit from cheap Chinese labor because the patents protect you from American/European/Japanese entrepreneurs while said foreign Chinese government provides you with legal slave labor is not planned obsolescence, it's a distribution/regulatory problem that makes for shitty goods. It is two soccer teams playing by different rules, one being ignored by the referee while the other is penalized for taking legitimate actions.
As an example of the productivity motive I mentioned and government interference, I would like to bring up milk. Milk used to be handled by milk maids and the cost for a gallon of milk was the labor of the milk maid combined with the distribution costs of the milk. Typically this was about equivalent to four hours worth of wages for your average pauper every week. As automation and development of transportation advanced, you needed fewer milk maids to do the job and milk hit an all-time-low of about 15 minutes of labor for a pauper to obtain a gallon of milk. At this point the market should have stabilized with less efficient milk services being forced out of the market (presumably into other professions, such as the manure industry or other agricultural industries) and milk maids having to diversify into other skillsets with the ones remaining earning enough to now provide for a family on a milker's salary rather than being part of an entire working family, giving their children access to better education, working conditions, etc. Instead the government got involved to "protect the milk industry" and it now costs about a half hour to an hour's wages for a gallon of milk once more, with the industry going to factory farming because they know the government will subsidize them for producing more milk than they could ever reasonably sell. The same story happens in many industries.
What are the essential anti-tech / deep ecology Youtube / Bitchute channels? I find Chad Haag to be pretty good listening

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports)

no cookies?