Yes

?warn @Deleted User keep it serious

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***Edickens#4320 has been warned., keep it serious***

No personal attacks

@Maksim that’s what I do. And when there are 3 houses for each of the people. The price goes down.

I don’t artificially inflate the price

You just did

The value of the house didn't go up

No. I matched the demand

When 3 people wanted it

Value of the house didn’t matter

Housing is crime to humanity

The cost of construction did not go up

No.

You satanic beast you’re killing humanity -_-

But the demand was there.

?mute @Deleted User 1h

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***Edickens#4320 was muted*** | 1h

@Attika I don't care about some real estate agent's wallet. I care more about creating new families and building a prosperous middle and working class

Houses are getting built in the area that I operate out of because me and people I know build houses for the people.

Same here.

Which is why I am doing something to help try and grow the middle class

By overpricing houses

Fucking genius

But when a solution was proposed to create new families and build a prosperous working class you were like "WHAT ABOUT ALL MY MONEY"

@Maksim can i have a socialist role

I am helping build houses and helping grow the middle class. I just sold a house I built to a girl who got married and who is starting a family who rented from me for years. She went from dirt poor to middle class because I helped her.

@bolivarian_robert <#587023017553559553> ?

@Maksim theres no socialist role there

No income tax for families that have more than 5 (white) kids

I could agree with that

I don't

That’s what Hungary did and I wholeheartedly support it

Sounds great

No income tax for families that have more than 5 kids in general lol

Nah

(white) kids

Depends on your country of course

Kinda cringe

I don't want all the African and Hispanic family's invading then living the easy life

But for European countries and the U.S, must be white

White kids

I actually once rented to a white girl even though she could only pay 350 dollars vs a black guys 400. 😏 don’t tell the state.

Based and redpilled

I'd do that, it's basic risk assessment

Yeah.

I'm probably not going to rent my property to non whites

<:cringe:591181675426217995>

Maybe east Asians too

I rent to a Hispanic family.

But they are pretty awesome

So I let em rent from me

<:what:591451631590178846>

Lols

There's not many of those around me

Luckily where I live it’s like 97% white

Only reason I'd accept east Asians is because I know they wouldn't damage the property, but I'd rather give it to a young white couple

racism is kinda cringe lol

No

Where's the racism?

We're just looking out for our group

Anyways gtg

Everyone does it

Class starting

I should head off as well

I take care of the people who are like me. 👍🏻

@Maksim cya bro. Good talk.

I’m off as well.

@Deleted User you too. Good talk.

See you later

you should always be more lenient on whites
they dont get the same gibs as blacks and a lot of stats over estimate black competence
banks in america literally engage in pure racial discrimination because even tho blacks have the same credit score as some whites they default on loans more often than their white counterparts
there was even an investigation on this by the US gov which found that they were accurately assessing risk and so they werent charged with discrimination etc

If you wanna look out for your group go ahead
Just don’t be an unneccessary asshole to other groups

Whites come first. End of story.

https://youtu.be/gK_0Yo-0r08

Conservatives don't conserve anything

^

Cringe reactionaries

All hail, the passengers of flight 93

isreal did 9/11 and we would be better off if that plane did crash into the pentagon

Oh fuck off will you

Also what is so good about Facism like actual reasons other than "because yeh" or "cringe"

Well you have to understand the differences in ontology that liberalism and reactionism holds. Reactionaries hold that almost any power that you hold now, has been passed from previous, or other power centers. Government goes far past the state apparatus, to business, finance, etc. Often power centers interact, and can be challenged. An unsecure power center will always seek to control itself. Setting up a republic or democracy is creating a system that has eternal unsecure power. Unsecure power centers will act out to destroy, or minimize the challenging power centers. Typically this is took to a monarchist standpoint, but fascists seek to ally the economy with the state through corporatism as well.

@sandwitch

Bruh Simmons typing a dissertation over here

I would argue to the contrary however, authoritarian states are always far less stable than states with less power focused in one position. Men, in their nature will always seek to profit themselves by grabbing power if they are brave and ambitious enough to take it.

In an authoritarian regime this leads to constant coups, civil wars and power struggles - all of these filled with self serving men. The more the power is delegated, the more stable a state is.

I’ll give you an example -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_revolts_and_civil_wars

The Byzantine Empire was has an overwhelming amount of rebellions and internal power struggles when compared to decentralised feudal Western European states. The reason is that in Byzantium everyone in power derived that power from the emperor and his authority alone. Anyone who governed any area or held any rank did so by his consent alone and he could strip these from people and replace them as he saw fit. His position was incredibly enviable and this caused constant internal strife.

Meanwhile in feudal states there were far fewer rebellions because while the feudal lords owed their loyalty to their king, they did not owe their power to him. They inherited their position from their fathers and it was usually a bad idea for the king to strip these positions from them without proper cause.

In a modern democracy, if the people are unhappy they voice discontent with a vote instead of flipping their shit and overthrowing you in a violent revolution. Often dictators stay in power because they are popular, but as soon as that popularity wanes they are overthrown, or even if they remain popular with the common man; the power they wield breeds the envy of their professed allies and they are betrayed by their own ruling class.

Might have gone a bit overboard there aye, but I was just thinking of what I would say.

Thanks for the TED talk Simmons <:smug:591181720565579807>

But seriously yeah that is a good point

@Simmons ☧ why are you a monarchist being opposed to authoritarian states

or are you a constitutional monarchist

I’m a constitutional monarchist, though I’m in favour of the monarch making more use of their powers rather than relying wholly on the ‘advice’ of the PM. What forget is that the monarch in the UK actually wields a lot of power and isn’t a ‘figurehead’ or whatever else liberals refer to them as.

A figurehead monarchy is called a crowned republic, a constitutional monarchy is an enfranchised monarch with powers and a position as superior to that of parliament.

The main reason I don’t approve of a full on absolute monarchy is summed up in what I wrote above. Benevolent dictatorships are a pretty dream, but the practical doesn’t work as well as the theory.

Take the Bismarck > Wilhelm problem for example. A strong leader builds a country and does it well, then he loses his power and it turns out he built a machine that only he can drive and his successor ends up being incompetent. There’s nothing worse than an incompetent leader with a lot of power.

Actually there is something worse -

an immoral man with absolute power

Elective Absolute Monarchy @Simmons ☧

Who are the electors? @Maksim

@Simmons ☧ Supreme Court - requirements for monarch bidding include a confirmed IQ of above 140, being a Nationalist, history of public service, history of generosity