This one is from ‘The Dark Knight’- 2008. It is hard to deny that the Joker is the least fucked up character in that movie.
YouTube has disabled embedding for this clip, therefore you have to watch it on their site.
Contrary to what ‘famous’ white morons think and preach, human societies larger than 100-200 individuals are neither inevitable or strictly necessary for survival. Humans and humanoids did OK for over 3 million years and apes/monkeys have done just fine for millions of years without anything more complex than small tribes or groups.
Any functional and resilient society with a population of more than a few hundred individuals requires certain features that smaller societies do not require. Let us list them..
1. Customs and rules that are, by and large, reasonable.
You can certainly have societies with unreasonable, unenforceable or tyrannical rules. But such societies are either nonfunctional or unstable. Look at India for an example of what unreasonable and unenforceable laws do to a ‘society’. Ex-communist countries, China and Arab totalitarian regimes are a good example of what happens when you run a society as a tyranny- they sorta function until an ‘unexpected’ implosion occurs.
The USA and many western countries are marching in that direction and it is unlikely that the result will be any different, skin color notwithstanding.
2. Positive motivation to contribute to society.
Extermination worthy white losers often complain about ‘black laziness’. Whether through cognitive dissonance or plain stupidity, one fact seems to escapes them- slaves and people who are forced to work for any society don’t care about it. The threat of death or torture is insufficient to get people to care about or contribute to a society. Even the roman empire was largely successful because it benefited its subjects (trade, investment, building) far more than most oxbridge cocksuckers are willing to admit. True slave-owning systems have low productivity, safety and stability.
Highly unequal societies like Brazil, Mexico are violent and unstable places precisely because they do not offer any positive stake to most of its inhabitants. India is no different, and the USA is rapidly heading in that direction.
3. Belief in inherent general fairness of the system.
Lots of stupid white cocksuckers, amongst others, keep on saying that- “life isn’t fair”. But no society can be functional or stable without an inherent and testable belief in the general fairness of a system.
Consider socialist west-European countries.. What percentage of their populations are worried about not having enough food, medical care, decent shelter and entertainment? What percentage are worried about pervasive abusive treatment by the legal system? While these countries are no utopias, they are seen as reasonably fair by insiders unlike USA, Mexico, Brazil, India and China.
It is this triad of features which make the difference between living in a shitty, violence prone and unstable society and one that is functional and stable.
Societies which do not ensure the general welfare of individuals, either implicitly or explicitly, cannot expect them to care about its inevitable decay and implosion. To put it another way, a society can insure itself against dysfunction and implosion by providing a favorable social contract to most, if not all, of its members.
It is necessary to see things like social welfare payments, foodstamps, decent socialized healthcare, stable careers, reasonable laws etc in this context. They exist not because of generosity and altruism, but to prevent people from defecting or otherwise screwing the system. Failure to provide societal insurance has severe, and often irreversible, consequences- but morons will learn no other way.