From my 10+ years on this site many claim that hierarchy is a fundamental, non-negotiable principle of their worldview. So let's follow that principle to its brutal, logical conclusion. If a leader's lineage is the obvious vessel of that status, then the most decisive way for a challenger to affirm the system is through a total victory over that. That means the ultimate hierarchical act isn't ONLY defeating someone at the top of a hierarchy, but it could also mean any guy murdering the baby of the male at the top of the hierarchy—erasing his genetic legacy in the most absolute way possible (and this is something that really ironically any guy would be physically capable of, obviously some mentally could not).By the cold, mathematical logic of 'might makes right' and 'the strong dominate the weak,' this isn't a crime; it's actually the system's purest expression. The victor has demonstrably proven his superiority by extinguishing the old line and creating a vacuum for his own.Yet, you find this act morally monstrous. And that revulsion is the very proof of my entire argument. Your instinctive horror demonstrates that you do not, in fact, value the raw mechanism of hierarchy above all else. What you truly value is stability, functionality, order, and security. You value a system that functions without collapsing into a paranoid bloodbath where no child is safe. The moment the pure logic of hierarchy leads to a outcome that is universally terrifying and dysfunctional, you abandon it. This proves your ideology is subservient to functionality. You don't worship hierarchy itself; you prefer a functional twisted handicapped limited hierarchy because it provides a stable and orderly society that prevents such atrocities. All of the characters in question that I have just previously mentioned are hypothetically white for the sake of argument since some of you will try to muddy the waters of the thought experiment unless that is absolutely established.
Inb4>That's different because it's a child / it's dishonorable to harm the innocent.You're introducing a new, higher principle—'innocence' or 'honor.' Where does that rule come from? It doesn't come from the logic of raw hierarchy, which only respects power. It comes from a separate moral system designed to restrain hierarchy's worst excesses to make society functional. By appealing to 'innocence,' you are proving my point: you are layering functional ethics on top of the hierarchical principle.>A true and strong leader would be powerful enough to protect his heirs from such a threat.That just moves the goalpost and blames the victim. It doesn't address the moral framework of the challenger. If the system's only rule is 'the strong rise,' then from his perspective, murdering the heir is a supremely effective strategy to destabilize and replace the top. Your objection isn't about his adherence to hierarchy; it's about your preference for a stable, predictable system where such brutal efficiency isn't necessary or allowed.
Inb4>You're just being emotional / that's a grotesque exaggeration that would never happen in a civilized society.First, this is not an exaggeration; it's a philosophical stress test. We test the strength of materials by pushing them to their breaking point, and I am testing the consistency of your ideology. The fact that it immediately breaks down and you retreat to concepts of 'civilization' and 'grotesquery' is the evidence. That 'emotional' response is the voice of your deeper, truly held value: functionality and civil order over pure hierarchical dominance. Second, to say this 'would never happen' is to ignore all of history. This has absolutely happened at every stage of human history. From the massacres of royal families in ancient empires, to the murder of the Romanov children, to the systematic elimination of rival lineages in countless dynastic struggles—the moment raw power is truly unleashed without a higher moral constraint, this is precisely the kind of act that occurs. Your objection proves that you believe in imposing those constraints, because you know the pure logic of hierarchy, left unchecked, leads to a world that you yourself find morally unacceptable.
>>522599371How does murdering a powerful persons child have anything to do with heirarchies? When we talk about heirarchy, we’re not talking about bloodlines. We’re talking about everything, anything in the world that can be assigned value. In politics, business, law, every day life. You sound like a completely delusional retard coming to these conclusions, if you’re not trolling you should be institutionalized
>>522599785All participants in a hierarchy are living beings. All living beings are the product of a genetic lineage (a bloodline). Therefore, the very existence of a hierarchy is dependent on the biological fact of bloodlines. You can't logically separate the structure from the material that constitutes it. How do you even figure that?Also your attempt to limit hierarchy to abstract "value" ignores its most fundamental expression: power and dominance. We assign value to a CEO's judgment over an act of violent succession precisely because we value a stable, functional society over a purely competitive one. Your moral revulsion to my example proves my entire point: you don't believe in raw hierarchy. You believe in a hierarchy neutered and constrained by ethics to make it functional. You want the results of a pecking order without accepting its logical, brutal consequences. That contradiction is the heart of my argument.
>>522599785crudely, if you eliminate the offspring there are no more descendantsthe hierarchy collapses
>>522600451That's saying that the construction of the pyramids was dependent on drinking water.It's true in a sense but it's just a truism and doesn't mean anything.
I agree. Now what?
Every single complex meatbag-run system with a few calling the shots over the many has inevitably shat the bed.Meatbags are fundamentally unsuited for anything other than managing a small tribe, and even then it's not guaranteed not to collapse, all because of their inherent negative qualities like selfishness, greed and corruption.Mortal organisms can't avoid these qualities because they are programmed to hoard as many resources as possible to secure their own genetic line before they expire.Only an impartial AI can truly be a benevolent leader.
>>522599785>How does murdering a powerful persons child have anything to do with heirarchies? When we talk about heirarchy, we’re not talking about bloodlines.lol delusional faggot. have you not learned by now that with elites it's all about bloodlines. look at soros faggot for example and how he groomed his son to take over. killing children of elites is how you stop them, that's why back in a day ever child and bastard was seeked out and murdered.
>>522601074>Only an impartial AI can truly be a benevolent leader.exactly this. systems like Socialism/Communism can only work with AGI that cannot be manipulated by jews be in charge of allocating resources. I bet every system can work if you remove human from the very top positions that easily corrupt mortal soul
>>522599371I only came in here to tell you that I didn't read any of your faggot posts.
nice blog about how you think you're smarter than everyone by recognizing people prefer comfort to fighting for power, hubristic faggot. nobody has ever made one of these before. you're the first!
>>522601464>double inb4 faggot op btfo/thread.
>>522601050Kek well I guess then my goal for the thread is achieved.>>522601493Cool story bro.
>>522599371>Yet, you find this act morally monstrousIf i kill the top of the hierarchy then i am the top, i have no need to kill the baby as my bloodline already surplanted his. Id kill you for suggesting that this is necessary to retain my position at the top.
TL;DR
>>522599371God I swear every five minutes some troon think they have /pol/ figured out and come here to write a 400000 word blog about how right they are and everyone just laughs at their stupid assesHere is my answer op
>>522599371>Yet, you find this act morally monstrousI don't think I've ever even seen it discussed.
>>522601074>Impartial AINo such thing. It has to be programmed by someone and it will have biases.
>>522599371 tldr
>>522599371Damn nigro, I'm not reading your chat gpt summary of Teddy K.
>>522599371Lol who the fuck is gonna read that slop
>>522601464>>522601967>>522603612>>522603701>>522604653>>522604801>>522605033I'm willing to bet all of these fags are the same ''people'' who complain about lazy twitter screencap posts or people posting lust provoking images but when someone actually provides thought provoking in depth conversations and the battling of ideas with active engagement they shriek because of their porn fried doom scrolling attention spans like the illiterate shitskins they are. Get out of this board and go wallow in a tik tok comment section if you cant handle reading more than 30 words you absolute filthy retarded ape nigger cattle slaves. Let me guess you think the state of this board has gotten worse over time? Well guess what, it's because of fucking YOU!
>>522599371I'd like to submit a formal response, that could some up your 10+ years here:>blow it out ur ass niggerfaggot
>>522606377Eat shit and die.
>>522606320Lmao a bad case of premature ejaculator
>>522599371>The only way to get to the top is violence, and everyone at the top of the hierarchy is a violent niggerThis is why you are brown, retarded, and subhuman, based off your own logic.
>>522606320>I'm willing to bet all of these fags are the same ''people'' who complain about lazy twitter screencap postsfirst day on 4chan huh
>>522607587Yeah no you're right, every clan who got to the top the world now and throughout history played nice, truthfully, fairly by the rules (whatever you even quantify that to be lol), and did it with a heart warming smile on their face while!
>>522608068Oh and non violently i might add, of course!
You rise an interesting argument! It only remains you test it by killing yourself you talmudian filth and occupy your place in that hierarchy
>>522608545I mean if you can't authentically defend your own point of view like a man then that makes you and your little worldview look worthless and pathetic, does it not? Can you understand that big boy or is that also to difficult for you? It's fine if you can't though, I don't expect much lol.
>>522606320Faggot, I'm reading this while cooking porkchops, be succinct.
Tell em king
>>522599371>By the cold, mathematical logic of 'might makes right' and 'the strong dominate the weak,Disregarded and stopped reading as you're clearly retarded. Might makes right isn't a position, it's a fundamental principle - on the level of gravity. The inability of anyone below some IQ threshold to understand this is amazing. So we've got a midwit post an a "discussion" brand picture - terrific.
>>522600451> All living beings are the product of a genetic lineage (a bloodline). ThereforeSo you believe the environment has no impact on the formation of the individual.Curious position to take.
>>522610917Kek I appreciate that, i'm around 125 though>>522611108>Might makes right isn't a position, it's a fundamental principleReally it's both but I agree with your point regardless.>>522611379Not sure how you got that from what I said but both nature and nurture are important. Probably nature being more important though if you've ever read the book the bell curve.
>>522599371>oh you believe a thing, why aren’t you a total absolutist to an absurd degree then?OP why don’t you support having 1 Ultra-God-Emperor and everyone else being enslaved to him until he dies and there is a battle royale to find the next God Emperor?
>>522612086Don't threaten me with a good time.
>>522599371How do I unsubscribe to your blog?
>>522600451Why do you open up your first post as a series of strawmen? You're just arguing with yourself about "muh might makes right". Literally who the fuck are you quoting schizo?
Can you even express this theory of yours as a syllogism? It makes no fucking sense. How on earth does it follow that since hierarchies exist, murdering an heir is no longer a crime?
>>522599371>You claim it's possible for some people to be better at playing guitar than others. >Let's take that line of thought to its brutal, logical conclusion:>IF I KILL STEVE VAI AND HIS CHILDREN, I WILL BECOME THE GREATEST GUITAR PLAYER EVER
>>522612535>>522612679The first sentence says who i'm talking about, (people who worship this idea of hierarchy), which a ton of people here and just in the alt right in general hold as a belief incase you didn't know. I want to be clear i'm not totally AGAINST hierarchy, i'm trying to force people to see that there are other things much higher than it in priority like functionality or might is right which is essentially unavoidable, for example. As for a syllogism which I had to look up what that even was, here is my attempt. If one truly values hierarchy as the supreme and fundamental principle, then one must endorse the logical outcomes of its competitive mechanism, regardless of their brutality. The most decisive and logically consistent act within a pure power hierarchy is to eliminate the leader's lineage (kill his baby) to supplant him. Therefore, if one truly valued hierarchy as the supreme principle, one would be obligated to endorse the murder of a leader's kid as a glorious and legitimate act.>>522612943Now that's a strawman
