Sargon of Akkad is just an SJW who happens to dislike women.
But he's not the only one. 4chan, Reddit and other sites are full of men who are totally on-board with the liberal program with the exception of feminism.
Has anyone else noticed this?
What's the reason behind it, a lack of success with women?
>How does he dislike women?
I don't think he necessarily does, I've just heard the phrase used and think it's appropriate. He's obviously unsucessful with women as he's an overweight programmer.
More broadly, generally I'm suspicious of people who are "anti-feminist" but totally on board with the rest of the liberal program. If you oppose feminism you have to oppose the egalitarian principles that underlie it.
That and MGTOW/MRA stuff is literally just feminism for men.
This is the guy who said that had White British men been protected by political correctness, they would've also been raping little girls en masse, right? Someone post the pics of his cuckery if you have them. He's good for attacking the low-hanging fruit but that's it, and even that becomes tiresome eventually.
If you believe in the individual as the principal unit of society, you are a liberal.
There's a sub-strate of liberalism online, among a lot of 4channers and redditors, where they like the mass immigration, the racial egalitarianism, the race-mixing etc but they're opposed to feminism for whatever reason.
>taking SJW's seriously instead of just roasting them on sight, ala https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfQIz22J2rk
I'm 99% sure he said exactly that during the whole debacle with AA and Libertarian Realist, but I don't have the pic so believe what you want. He's still a cuck regardless, check out the hangout he joined on Millennial Woes' channel.
>If you oppose feminism you have to oppose the egalitarian principles that underlie it.
It could have something to do with how feminists may proclaim a bunch of values, but don't actually live up to it in the least.
So from the guy's perspective feminists say they believe in all the things he does, but don't move a fucking finger and are very far fromactually living up to any of it.
But then he ought to be against virtually all modern liberal bullshit groups by the very same logic.
>If you believe in the individual as the principal unit of society, you are a liberal.
So Thatcher is a liberal now?
>"They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
It's more like "he's ok with non-white people becoming a majority in western countries so he's a leftist".
No, I don't like the term "SJW". It depoliticizes their agenda, which is implicitly and explicitly left-wing and liberal. I call them what they are: Liberals.
>So Thatcher is a liberal now?
Thatcher was also on-board with demographically significant migration, all British Governments have been since the 1950s.
That's why I advocate a paradigmatic shift in how we examine our values.
>but don't actually live up to it in the least.
In what sense?
They're an interest group, obviously male "rights" aren't their priority but I don't think the bulk of them are opposed to men being just as hedonistic, pleasure-seeking and present-orientated as they are.
Bit of an autistic way to put it but this seems to be the SJW line of advancement.
Feminists are not about equality between the sexes, nor do they give a singular shit about the well-being of women. It's all about making money and justifying a hatred of men.
Where is the feminist outcry against Islam after Rotherham?
Somehow their biggest concern in Sweden are men pissing while standing and daring to sit open legged on the bus, not third world immigration causing the country to become Europe's rape capital.
I don't think feminists hate men.
I also don't think feminists "aren't about equality", you just believe that because their methods are proactive rather than a mild belief in negative liberty.
>Somehow their biggest concern in Sweden are men pissing while standing and daring to sit open legged on the bus, not third world immigration causing the country to become Europe's rape capital.
Yes, it's anti-white, but again that's because of inter-sectionality - They see white men as occupying the top of the food chain and therefore have a general, over-arching animus towards white men. It is still egalitarianism, it's just based on an intersectional model of how groups interact with one another. The reason I say it's still egalitarianism is because for most whites it's still primarily driven by a general principle of "equality", even if in practice you may disagree.
Now. You're right they don't care about Islam that much, they have a blind spot on it. But so does Sargon, so do most of the chucklefucks who support moron movements like GamerGate, so are most liberal 4channers. All of these people are just as much in favor of mass immigration as the feminists.
OP is a shill and redesigned his thread to ask a question instead of just saying based or BTFO and posting a video link.
Just report it, hes shilling so youl go watch the videos, his pics title even has the same name.
Did you poo in the loo before posting this Pajeet?
yeah, guy's a fucking slippery leftist cunt. did you see his appearance in the Millenial Woes YT video? Spent the entire fucking 2 hours saying over and over again "I'm not saying... blah blah blah". Never actually said anything.
He is the sort of a person, that will only adopt right-wing views only when something personal will happen to him. Either his house gets robbed by "refugees" or his sister gets raped by a paki. Only then he will understand what we preach.
Go watch Yuri Bezmenov's "Deception was my job". He talks about these sort of people
exactly. i dont know why people praise this tool. he stated on the Millenial Woes hangout that the people on the far right were uneducated and not smart. clearly shows he's never read Nick Land, Jim Donald, Dalrock, Mark Citadel, CWNY any of the other people in nrx who could pulverize him intellectually.
How exactly am I a shill? Because I question /pol/'s support of people who are totally on board with mass immigration purely because they oppose feminism?
Liberals are too comfortable with playing a polemical role. It's why, in spite of half a century of liberal social, criminal and immigration policy they never actually take responsibility for anything. They're always able to cast themselves as the counter-culture.
what pisses me off is how fucking arrogant he is to say that people on the far right are stupid. its just so fucking obvious that he has never actually read any literature from the far right
I doubt his wife is much to look at.
Sargon sees himself as occupying middle ground. On the right are cartoonish caricatures of neo-nazis and on the left are crazy "feminazis" (hate that term by the way, there's nothing wrong with national socialism).
The issue is that the middle ground is so far to the left, all these "neo nazis" really are is a big tent for people who don't want to become minorities in their own countries.
Used to like him but he seems to be going a bit soft as of late.
Much prefer Milo,Pat Condell,Morakieu,Paul Joseph Watson,Rams Paul or MW.
Sargon isn't smart either. He's good at rhetorical tricks, but analyze what he says carefully and you find that he actually rarely forwards any position that is argued effectively. He's a youtube hustler. Davis Aurini has more chops.
>I don't think feminists hate men
Yet for their ideology everything to do with masculinity or any corners of culture where men are the main target audience is a horrendous evil to be vanquished.
>I also don't think feminists "aren't about equality"
What exactly have they done to make you think they are egalitarianists?
Oppression Olympics this way or another, if you have a religion that says that a woman who is raped has to come up with four men of that same religion to vouch for her before it even gets treated as a crime, your religion and its push to enter Western society should be the chief concern of any political movement about the well-being of women.
They have a "blind spot" because their actual beliefs obscure their view of reality (and so they make sure that race can no longer be recorded on crime statistics, lest the facts get in the way of ideology). Admittedly another factor is that if you call white men evil they will feel bad and throw bags of money at you. Others will just cut your fucking head off.
And I did mention that many other "liberal" groups have the same problem in my first post.
Liberals are not, fundamentally, people interested in morality, consistency or getting anything done, they just want the warm feelings of believing they are morally superior people, regardless of the damage they do.
>Yet for their ideology everything to do with masculinity or any corners of culture where men are the main target audience is a horrendous evil to be vanquished.
Well yes, they disagree with the notion of biological "essentialism", just like Sargon and most 4chan/Reddit liberals do. It's just for the latter the notion that men and women are completely and utterly the same biologically and that every difference is socialized is a lot harder to swallow than racial blank slateism.
>What exactly have they done to make you think they are egalitarianists?
Their guiding principle is a desire to equalize these inter-sectionally aligned groups.
MW is great.
Handsome fucker too (no homo).
Right, exactly. Sargon and GamerGaters and 4chan/Reddit liberals are all cut from the same cloth, they all sell a message that liberalism is just great and wonderful... minus the feminism.
But the problem is that feminism isn't some thing unto itself, as they seem to think it is. It's a tentacle of progressivism. It's a logical outgrowth of both individualism and egalitarianism.
Sargon often mocks the radical right for its failure to combat liberalism effectively, he contrasts this by saying things like "well, most people disagree with feminism, most people are on our side". But that's sheer delusion - Feminists are wiping the floor with these liberal-lites such as Sargon - the entire GG debacle ended with IBM and other leading elite corporate companies pledging something to the tune of $100m to support "women in tech" and other feminist causes.
And the REASON they're so impotent in fighting feminism is because they're incapable of doing it systematically, of viewing feminism in its proper context, as just one tentacle of a monster called egalitarianism.
>What's the reason behind it, a lack of success with women?
Remember how the New Atheist movement was all the rage a few years ago? It was co-opted by SJWs and feminists who turned it into Atheist+ (atheism + a bunch of bullshit social justice). Because of this, a bunch of liberal atheists like Sargon and Thunderfoot became ever-so-slightly redpilled and became anti-SJW. But apart from that they're every bit the same liberal atheists that they were before.
>Feminists are not about equality between the sexes
Of course they are. Why are you spewing MRA bullshit?
>Where is the feminist outcry against Islam after Rotherham?
Because feminists like Islam for obvious reasons.
Next time I'll post a bane pic to make it obvious.
Also its a good thing the ham planets are caught in each other's gravity wells. It means one less permavirgin fatbitch giving out money to femininazis and shitting up the interwebs.
and Sargon doesn't think judging based on race is morally okay (leave aside that his belief system means morals are fictitious anyway), but he admits that human beings naturally do discriminate based on race.
So he's a utopian moron to boot. I'll be the first to say MW sometimes invites fucking idiots into his hangouts (they're just people who sign on, so I dont blame him), but Sargon is ignoring the massive intellectual core of the right which produces essays on various issues daily.
>most 4chan/Reddit liberals do.
The only times I have ever gone on Reddit was when someone linked something retarded here, or when it came up in google for a problem I had. As a result I cannot attest to that site's liberal population.
But where the fuck do you go to find liberals here? /co/mblr?
>Their guiding principle is a desire to equalize these inter-sectionally aligned groups.
They like to toss words about and pretend they mean something.
What have they actually done, say, about young boys falling behind in education, largely as a result of female teachers fucking them over? Or, to stay with that example, given how incredibly important role models are for them (so much so that the whole of the media has to cater to them and create perfect, flawless women who can take on men three times their weight in a fight), and how prevalent single mother households are, how about some quotas for male teachers so young boys have male authority figures in their lives?
Never ally with weak men.
Never take advice from beta faggots.
Never look up to loser nu-males.
Your heroes should be physically strong, confident, charismatic men. Not these fucking nerd failures who make hour long videos about Anita.
That's exactly what I mean.
That's why they lose, they oppose a logical outgrowth of a belief in individualism and egalitarianism.
The question he asked was "is it ok to be prejudiced against an individual based on race?" He couched it as a kinda "gotcha" question, to ensnare the racists - remember that people like Sargon and Thunderf00t are obsessed with "racists" because they need to earn good boy points so the powers that be in the left don't decide to randomly apply the mark of shame to them (bigot, racist etc).
Of course it is morally ok to discriminate based on race. In fact discrimination in of itself is a moral necessity that brings about hierarchy, segregation, order and peace. It also allows for things like qualitative distinction.
Sargon is just another low t faggot in the IT industry. Probably more estrogen than man.
i noticed the same thing from that faggot Jordan Owen who was working on the Sarkeesian effect. Totally exploded at Roosh because he joked about legalizing rape. These guys are trying to be good cucks for the left.
>But where the fuck do you go to find liberals here? /co/mblr?
The bulk of 4chan's population are liberal dude. The fact they occasionally say nigger doesn't change the fact they're generally on board with the liberal program up to a point (that point being feminism).
I remember /r9k/ after the Obama election in 08, people were going crazy with joy.
>They like to toss words about and pretend they mean something.
They do mean something. You're doing /pol/ a disservice by thinking they're just "corrupting the pure principles of liberalism" or whatever.
They are natural outgrowths of a belief in liberalism. End of.
He has a wife and son so... OP Is a shitposter.
Roosh has moved away from MRA shit as of late right? He's talking a lot about things like race realism and so on, which is good. That whole PUA scene is full of obnoxious faggots.
>If you oppose feminism you have to oppose the egalitarian principles that underlie it.
no you don't, if you oppose Nazim you don't also have to oppose improving welfare
Whats with the anti Sargon shit lately? bunch of millenial woe fans pissy he fucking rekt the autists he invited on by just asking questions?
Don't feel bad, it really was god damn terrible. MW needs to get some better friends.
Roosh sacrificed a lot of traffic to actually start talking about real issues. Return of Kings started publishing articles less from manchildren like DannyFrom504, and more from actual reactionaries. He's going the right way.
he always claimed that MRAs are pussy betas who are basically just the other side of the coin of feminism.
he's based as fuck but he comes across a bit autistic.
I am not a liberal by any stretch of the definition, but there is a fuckhuge difference between the classical, Enlightenment era liberals and the shite that exists now. For one thing the new model wants to do away with the freedom of speech and equality before the law, vehemently denies any responsibility for their own actions and is governed by beliefs that are very, very religious in everything but name.
Man, I keep forgetting that place exists.
It's more like:
>"If you oppose National Socialism you have to oppose white racial consciousness on any level too"
Which is... exactly what they do.
Excellent. Glad to hear it. Roosh is a cool guy.
>not being against egalitarianism
I'm not a sexist though, that doesn't make sense to me based on my views of women. I'm not racist in the same way, even though I don't want other races here nor think they are equal to my own.
cool so when is that white upper class woman going to give up her job of chairman for a poor minority, if we want equality and all that
No there isn't, the basic principle of all variants is the same, the individual as the supreme unit of society, the individual above the group. If you adopt this as an axiom you must logically view all that is ancillary to the individual as something to liberate he or she from: Tradition, faith, hierarchy etc.
>implying fat betas don't settle down with the first fugly chick that lets them have boring, sweaty sex with them
if anything they're more likely to have kids because they have no options in terms of dating.
Now you have to be kidding me son. He sat there blew them all the fuck out. They had no answer for how they planned to get the common folk on their side because guess what mate, most people don't like Nazi's, and without the backing of the people they'd need to spend decades pulling a feminism and infiltrate academia and government groups.
And then when he left they bitched about how he cucked them.
exactly. we have a new religion in europe, the cult of liberalism.
Remember, the definition of genocide includes actively suppressing birth rates. attacking traditional religious institutions suppresses birthrates. ipso facto, the liberal attack on the two main churches of Europe is a form of genocide. they want birthrates below replacement
>He thinks feminism is a logical outgrowth of the belief in equal opportunities.
Ah, you didn't read my post and just shitposted. Accepting that men and women are different is not against the concept of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism by definition would also concern itself with male rights and their treatment in society, which feminism does not do. A true egalitarian would accept the first fact and work for the later, where again, feminism does neither. The equal opportunity it supports also isn't the same as the protectionist, 'stacked boxes' approach of feminism. In a truly egalitarian view, everyone is open to take jobs they qualify for. No extra help to compensate for biological flaws. Feminism on the other hand supports given unequal, un-egalitarian advantages to certain individuals while also removing or reducing the natural advantages of another group for the sake of equal representation, which is anathema to true equal opportunity.
you are such a retard its unbelievable. We dont care about the common folk. they dont fucking matter. they are there to be manipulated and controled. all you have to do is take power, by force if necessary. Pinochet proved this principle. Sargon wants us to be SJWs to attract the masses. fuck the masses
>But the problem is that feminism isn't some thing unto itself, as they seem to think it is. It's a tentacle of progressivism. It's a logical outgrowth of both individualism and egalitarianism.
>Sargon often mocks the radical right for its failure to combat liberalism effectively, he contrasts this by saying things like "well, most people disagree with feminism, most people are on our side". But that's sheer delusion - Feminists are wiping the floor with these liberal-lites such as Sargon - the entire GG debacle ended with IBM and other leading elite corporate companies pledging something to the tune of $100m to support "women in tech" and other feminist causes.
>And the REASON they're so impotent in fighting feminism is because they're incapable of doing it systematically, of viewing feminism in its proper context, as just one tentacle of a monster called egalitarianism.
No, it's not true. Feminism is anti-individualistic. It's collectivist at heart. Sargon is an individualist, that's why he disagrees with feminism.
Within the group of egalitarians there are two groups: Collectivist and individualist egalitarians. You can't just lump them all together. It's a different world view.
>this fucking delusion
Mate please. Even Hitler required a certain level of support to take over. You're a bunch of whiny faggots on the internet, the swastika wearing tumblr feminists.
Uncle Adolf would spit on you.
>They had no answer for how they planned to get the common folk on their side because guess what mate, most people don't like Nazi's, and without the backing of the people they'd need to spend decades pulling a feminism and infiltrate academia and government groups.
Sargon began with a false premise, he suggested most people are opposed to the alt right - Actually, if you look at social polling, most white people overwhelmingly support the alt right on most issues - Most white people have consistently registered opposition to mass immigration into their countries in every western country with the exception of Sweden, most white people support the death penalty, most white people support, at least tacitly, racial segregation given neighborhood and school demographics.
individualists are evolutionary garbage. They are consumed by collectivists. europe has ceased to be collectivist, which is why we're being conquered by swarthy foreigners. Collectivism is natural. but the question is "what constitutes the collective". leftists think it is the oppressed. I think its race and religion.
Individualism is for spiders
>Here's my sola scriptura liberalism, it is ceaseless and unchanging
Except it has changed. Liberalism has come to mean more than just "right to a fair trial". Shock horror, when you start out with retarded axioms, the application of them in practice also becomes "progressively" more retarded!
>Sargon is an individualist
Can you postulate an evolutionary mechanism, both theoretically and in practice, as to how an individual survives without a group to protect him?
Yes, I don't agree that locking up sub-90 IQs who probably will be glad to be free of the responsibility of bills and mortgages constitutes a real "punishment".
But capital punishment is the least of what I support. I'm fully in favor of:
- Corporal punishment.
- Labor camps.
- Humiliation punishments (e.g. the stocks).
All of these are far more effective measures against petty crime than prison.
he has a kid and a wife who is more red pilled than he is even on feminism
he is fuckin based and i am a ukip supporter also
you are a shill m8 its like you accusing thunderf00t of being a undercover SJW
When a new movement has usurped the meaning of a word from the original movement, the original movement does not become part of the new. They remain separate. If your argument is that neo-egalitariianism is now equated to feminism, that does not mean that the people who believe in its original form are now feminists.
>I'd really love to see those numbers.
Pew Global, Ipsos Mori. Most white British people have and always have opposed mass immigration.
Racial segregation is another matter, there's an extreme stigma against it, but strict immigration laws of the kind people want are de facto racial segregation anyway (that's what a real nation is, a people with a shared kinship group). Add on to that the fact that in terms of neighborhood demographics, most people overwhelmingly prefer to live around their own kind.
I largely agree with you that collectivism is stronger. Collectivist attitudes will decide the outcome of history in the long run.
>what constitutes the collective
Sounds like a false dichotomy to me. The people will decide which collective to side with based on what benefits them more.
That being said: You're pinning the blame on individualism. It's not true. Individualism is a very good thing. It compels people to think critically. In order to function, a democracy requires people to think as individuals.
There are not separate movements, one is a logical continuation of the other.
Like I have already said, if you start out with the premise that the individual is the supreme unit of society, then any symbiotic link with the group, any biological "essentialism" etc, must logically be attacked.
Ok, enjoy dying out. I'm sure the Chinese will erect a monument in honor of your altruism at some point.
>video game headset
>le manly spirit
>The people will decide which collective to side with based on what benefits them more.
The non-white peoples have already decided. Their collective interests lie with their kinship groups, i.e. their respective races.
When are whites like you going to wake up and realize the same?
>That being said: You're pinning the blame on individualism. It's not true. Individualism is a very good thing. It compels people to think critically. In order to function, a democracy requires people to think as individuals.
Yeah right, people think so critically that we live in an even more narrow overton window in contemporary liberal democracy than people under literal totalitarian states lived.
>Can you postulate an evolutionary mechanism, both theoretically and in practice, as to how an individual survives without a group to protect him?
If each member of the group acts in his own interest, all members of the group will succeed.
If evolution makes it so that individual interests align with the group interest, then individual interests are all that are required.
>one is a logical continuation of the other.
>I believe both genders are equal.
>I believe women are superior.
Are you even trying?
>If each member of the group acts in his own interest, all members of the group will succeed.
Your scenario ignores the existence of other groups, and the fact groups compete with each other.
They don't actually believe women are superior, or are you just triggered by the sort of silly banter women occasionally come up with, you fucking KHV?
Democracy doesn't work so well because most people aren't responsible or intelligent. Look at America today and look at how we got to this sad sorry state that we're currently in and tell me letting average people decide anything is a good idea.
>When are whites like you going to wake up and realize the same?
I already said i agree with you.
>Yeah right, people think so critically that we live in an even more narrow overton window in contemporary liberal democracy than people under literal totalitarian states lived.
People don't think critically. It's one of the failures of democracy. I'm just saying: You should focus your attacks on the poison. I.e. the egalitarian collectivists.
>Your scenario ignores the existence of other groups, and the fact groups compete with each other.
Societies balanced towards individualism are going to be more creative and find new solutions to problems.
Societies balanced towards collectivism are going to be more efficient, but less creative. There's an optimal balance to be struck.
he ponts out that sweden has a rape problem and the pakis are to blame
he points at feminists and calls them fuckin cultists
he points at sjws and tumblr and calls them retards
he points at islam and says its a death cult
he points at trans people as being lunatics and should be disregarded
watching him lead me to coming here desu...i dont know why people on pol hate him so?
Yeah dude, I'm totally a feminist. I agree with the expulsion of 95% of non-whites from Europe, the establishment of the death penalty, making career liberals work in labor camps, mandatory military service, criminalization of miscgenation... But i'm absolutely a feminist.
It's not just that. A mass electorate is far more easy to control with the Jewish media than a small, carefully selected, future-orientated electorate.
Universal Suffrage is just proxy-plutocracy.
Wrong. /pol/ represents a return to biological normalcy. Even dumbass liberal whites care about their race deep deep down, they just force themselves to repress their ingroup preferences.
Consider that anti-racism has to be learned. No one is born as an "anti racist".
>Societies balanced towards individualism are going to be more creative and find new solutions to problems.
That's right, look at the "new solution" we found to solving our "demographic crisis" for example. Totally new and totally novel. That makes it good.
>criticizes some women
>mostly feminist that happen to be women
HES A DIRTY SEXIST BURN HIM AT THE STAKE
>Wrong. /pol/ represents a return to biological normalcy
No /pol/ represents individualism correcting the course. If we were truly as collective as you want we'd all be brainwashed goodgoys instead of just a lot of us.
The collective is controlled by the elite, they decide the course of the collective and force it onto the members. Individualism rejects the course.
Because he gets to make money off of saying the same thing /pol/ says and actually has a wife and a kid who are probably traditionalist. He is hated by both libs and conservakuks. He is a centralist, and I am okay with that. Sargon of Akkad is based af senpai
So your supposed panacea to our problems is a philosophy that denies the very existence of groups as real, tangible and useful things, and sees them as necessarily antagonistic?
Yeah, good luck with that. Once you've done working out the ethical niceties of consequentialism or whatever other bullshit some faggot like Locke or Mill or Paine dreamed up, and our countries are 90% non-white, then maybe we can agree that we finally NEED TO ACT AS A FUCKING GROUP to expel the parasites and invaders.
>That's right, look at the "new solution" we found to solving our "demographic crisis" for example. Totally new and totally novel. That makes it good.
Not all new solutions are good, but some outperform the old solutions. You want some percentage of people trying new things.
>Not all new solutions are good, but some outperform the old solutions.
Then it's a matter of proving it with a testable hypothesis. Not a matter of novelty for the sake of novelty, which is what liberalism encourages (look at conceptual art).
That's a political opinion you have. Centralist is what it means. Central. Trying not to show any bias to one group of ideas. He said though he does lean more left on more social issues and points out that the jewery that is going on to create a generation of thoughtless lefties is a cancer in general. Sounda based and not very left indoctrinated to me.
Also it not like conservatives are right on everything. There are two major parties for a reason. There are cancer tumors in both when you go too far but both parties are vital for the survival of each other. Realizing THAT is centralist.
You can be collectivist and individualist at the same time. In fact, to maximize individual rights and capacity you need a strong collective society—raw and pure individualism is hermit cavemen.
>Then it's a matter of proving it with a testable hypothesis. Not a matter of novelty for the sake of novelty, which is what liberalism encourages (look at conceptual art).
Every society has idiots that don't get it.
Artists are just entertainers. They're not real people.
>Centralist is what it means. Central.
Yes, the center of the political, social and cultural spectrum as it exists at a given time - every age has a zeitgeist, and zeitgeists can be radically different. A "centrist" 50 years ago is very different to a "centrist" today.
Today's nations are barely democratic. The individual voter is extremely insulated from actual state decisions. If 51% of all voting citizens support thing X, the resulting government might not even realize thing X exists. They do their own thing, pushing aristocratic interests as they are themselves aristocrats.
Read the rest of my last comment, britubong.
Centralism doesnt radically change because the media suddenly goes super left. Its not even a political party thought that moves. I would actually say centralism would lean more towards right because it wants to see the balance of two party opinions, not one side. You are trying to describe centralism like its a median in a set from a math problem. Not how it works senpai.
No, today's nations are very democratic, it's just that they're the logical end result of a mass electorate - that is, a mediocre herd being led around by the media, being taught to shut up on certain issues as it's "unacceptable discourse" for example.
You, and most other liberals, just place some sort of... quasi-spiritual faith in the notion of the "individual" as this smart, free thinking, brilliant man, when in reality he's just some average joe that NEEDS to be led and taught - unfortunately for whites, it is anti-whites doing the leading and the teaching.
One other point: In america we're much more ideologically balanced towards the individualist end of things than you guys in bongistan.
That's why whenever one political party starts getting too strong, everybody is suddenly voting for the other one.
That's why we maintain our right wing despite a constant stream of liberal media. It's also why we need to build a wall. The left figured out the way to win was to import collectivists from other countries.
>Centralism doesnt radically change because the media suddenly goes super left.
Sorry, you're quite right. Mass immigration, miscegenation and gay marriage were actually normal, accepted things in Britain 100 years ago.
It's not that he has a beard, it's the way they made it look on that.. wtf is that, a mask?
I mean what is that supposed to be, a dreadlock beard? "Just put cornrows on my face bruh"? Did they seriously leave rollers in their facial hair before they went to bed?
And how did this happen? Oh yeah, the public let it happen because the public is too dumb to prevent it. The fact that the 14th and 15th amendments ever got passed in this country is proof that democracy was never meant to be.
That is some biased shitto.
No factual back up can neither disprove nor prove what you said directly, so that's kind of loaded right there.
But to elaborate, the reason why Sargon thinks individuals are the center of society is simple; the individual makes up the whole. You have to focus on the individual, then the group, then the nation otherwise you leave some people in the dust and have an unbalanced system which favors certain people and not even consider others, basically unintentionally.
Additionally, rulers are nothing without a subject to rule. So it is also in the ruler's best interest to listen to the individuals, then to the groups, etc. Etc. I dont think Sargon has never said the individual is a free thinking intellectual, but i do agree that that's what most cancerous far left zeitgeists believe.
>Have you figured out the only way you're going to win yet?
>Hint, it involves collectivism.
Totally agree. Whites should band together as a group in recognition of their common interests.
Read again BRITBONGU.
I never said the subjects discussed at hand were the same. I said that the basic mindset and principle of the centralists do not radically change. Jesus fuck man. Like talking to a brick wall.
It's pretty simple, either those things were accepted throughout all of history, in which case the notion of a "centrist" being uninfluenced by the zeitgeist makes sense, or they weren't, in which case a "centrist" in our context is just a liberal.
>You have to focus on the individual, then the group
No. The relationship is symbiotic in that the individual REQUIRES the group to survive in the first place. What we in Europe are doing right now is focusing on the individual, believing groups don't exist. The end result is going to be our replacement by foreign groups.
You are either trying to throw some logical gymnastics to test or denying what I said pretty damn hard. You have only been replying to point 1 of all my comments. Read the whole thing so I can actually make some reasonable reply.
Also. Can you focus on the group without the individual? Can you just throw the same feed into a fish tank which has many fishes with different survival needs and expect the entire tank to do well? Im not saying we completely ignore the group while focusing individuals, but the primary focus should be on individuals first so that when you handle the group its not a fucking nightmare.
>they follow whatever the zeitgeist is
Please look up a definition of Centralism... jesus fuck britbong your country is so keked even the supposedly most redpilled /pol/bong is denying facts.
>Also. Can you focus on the group without the individual?
No, but I've never suggested you do this. My point is that in the face of an existential threat, you shouldn't pretend that the threat doesn't exist because you find it more comforting to pretend races "don't actually exist" because the individual reigns supremacy, as Sargon does.
Most biologists would concur with him on the fact that races scientifically do not exist in the current homo sapiens sapiens with the rare exception of aboriginals/natives of straya, southern merica, alaska, etc. Etc.
Not trying to shill. That's a fact. One of the many polsters refuse to admit.
I have never discussed existential threat and neither have you previously. The fuck you trying to pull boy
>who happens to dislike women
>I don't think he necessarily does [dislike women]
Then why in the hell did you write in the OP that he does you fool?
>I've just heard the phrase used and think it's appropriate.
All in the same sentence.
Lad I can't take this.
>Most biologists would concur with him on the fact that races scientifically do not exist
>I have never discussed existential threat and neither have you previously. The fuck you trying to pull boy
So, just to be clear here - you're in favor of white people being racially replaced within Europe because "race doesn't exist", and to oppose such replacement is "collectivism", right?
Fuck off Korean. This is to do with Europeans, got nothing to do with you.
>with the rare exception of aboriginals/natives of straya, southern merica, alaska, etc. Etc.
Also, the "natives of America and Alaska" are just sub-groups of Mongoloids, so you're proving my point in your defense against it.
Sorry britbong, Im on a rather slow device and I can't pull up citations but you can google it, actually sorry.
It does have to do with us too. We have an incompetent president with the only thing keeping degeneracy out being the peninsula-wide war breaking lose and China. After you it is us. We also have ancient Hun (not the hun you are thinking, don't know what its called in ENglish, but thats how we pronounce it in korean and the two are distinct) which is basically a race of people with korean ancestors but have been living in china since Go Gu Ryeo fell and most of korean land fell to China. They are basically niggers and sandniggers.
THey take low paying jobs. high percent of criminal for a minority. rape our women, and etc. The only good thing about these fuckers is that they are ugly and unhygienic and have even smaller dicks than us, so our women don;t go near them.
What I was trying to say was that most people in first world countries tend not to be completely different in terms of skeletal structure. Genetically speaking even straya abbos would be the same species as us, but pol likes to use the skeletal thing more because it fits their view and i will concede to that, but still. Genetically homogeneous
Christ these anti sargon threads are so cringy
Hes funny and one of the few people who say it like it is
More blue pilled then most of /pol/ but he isnt shit by any means
Idf pls go
This is why /pol/ users are a bunch of faggots sometimes. The second anything becomes main stream or popular you need to denounce it and shit all over it. You edgy cock suckers. Also he may dislike women but he is still married and has a child.
he has adressed Islam repeatedly...he is against bringing in economical migrants from pakistang afghanistant on the african countries and he said in some of his videos that islam is an inferior religion and has an inferior culture
you sound exactly like some of the guys in that stream...he did not call them stupid...he said he didnt think they were intelligent enough to take their march through the higher learning institutions simply because none of them attended any higher learning institutions
but that was Sargon's mistake. He thinks they want to do a long march through the institutions when MW said repeatedly they were not going to do that. Hezbollah didn't do a long fucking march through the institutions of Lebanon.
WARNING OP IS A FAGGOT - DAILY REMINDER THAT 4CHAN IS FULL OF PEOPLE TRYING TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
Those critical of immigration from third world countries need to support each other on a basic level even if their views differ.
Sargon is handing out red pills light to those who never had a taste before. OP is a faggot.
>Those critical of immigration from third world countries need to support each other on a basic level even if their views differ.
I agree. But Sargon doesn't oppose it, he has repeatedly stated he supports demographically significant immigration to Europe.
>I guess he is completely against the government taking someones property to help the migrants
Wow, strong stand there. He's against the government actively facilitating invasion to that extent.
>can you be more specific?
It's really quite simple, do you support demographically significant immigration or not? Because it's that sort of immigration that is going to dispossess us ultimately and render us minorities.
my stance is similar to his..I think EU should only help the actual syrian refugees not every fucker that decised to come to the EU.I hate Islam as culture and as a religion but thats not a good enough reason to exterminate them or whatever
really? want me to provide evidence and shut your whore mouth for good? if it wasn't for nationalists there would be no alt right but he is another that is blue pilled as fuck swallowing the media line. All these attention whores that latch onto a movement then try to reform it in their own image just like stormtards,
White people wanting to protect their identity = racist according to Sargon of cuckold but he will happily use their propaganda as his own
I agree. I can rest easy knowing that I will become a minority among a majority of GOOD muslim refugees, rather than the BAD refugees.
That's the real issue here, letting in the GOOD refugees, not the issue of whites becoming minorities in their own homelands and refusing to put our own people first.
he was not associating with them...he was invited to their stream and we wanted to figure out their stance on things.
I still think he appreciates the alt-right more than the neo-progressives for the simple fact that their ideas are not that radical except the racism I guess
Yeah, they're cool with whites becoming hated minorities in their own countries, they just wish the purple haired feminist with her tits out would calm down.
GamerGate was a mistake.
This post implies that feminism is opposed to individualism. It is not. Feminism is a personal identity movement and engages in the identity politics bullshit, at its basest levels.
Why? The problem, ultimately, is the net inflows.
We shouldn't have to play a fecundity game for elite amusement, nor does low fertility necessarily entail mass immigration - look at East Asia.
It is resonating with the body politic that is what counts.
lolbertarians don't have the stomach to bring the kind of fight to the SJW that is required.
GG died a slow death once the more hardline elements abandoned the project it will end up like project chanology co-opted and completely subverted eventually.
Sargon is good at sophistry, damn good at it, and he is able to play the progressive crowd on feminism at their own game.
But his attitude toward the abomination at Rotherham is fucking disgraceful, and he's far from opposed to the program to replace British people in their homelands.
If he stayed on point and simply criticised feminism I wouldn't mind him at all, but he weighs in on other issues in a really toxic and vapid, thoughtless way. In so doing he creates an artificial, 'middle ground' that prevents otherwise inquisitive people from delving deeper and questioning other premises that surround the feminist, egalitarian narrative.
It isn't that he doesn't go far enough that bothers me. It's that he's actively hostile toward people that do, and encourages an intellectual climate that is okay with questioning some aspects of progressivism, but dismissive at best and hostile at worst toward questioning others.
He's so convinced of his own intellectual superiority to others that he's fallen into the, 'enlightened by my own intelligence,' trap. Like so many of these people who were progressive until the overton window left them behind, he claims to be, 'open minded and willing to question,' right up until the questioning forces him to challenge the foundations of his beliefs.
Then the infallible, cold logic collapses and is instead replaced by, quite literally, 'Well those statistics and this proven incident of MASS RAPE from within the pakistani community, protected by progressive elements of government that share my beliefs, are real interesting, BUT DONT YOU KNOW I have these REALLY NICE second generation Muslim friends who aren't like that and therefore all of that hard data means FUCK ALL. Oh, and by the way, you are racist nazis and White people would be just as bad if political correctness protected them.'
It stops people who respect him dead in their tracks and keeps them from questioning further. He's a fucking menace desu.
feminism is derived from marxism, at the core it's collectivist.
>women being monogamous is bad
>women being housewives is bad
>women not being in the workforce is bad
those are all views you're required to hold to be on team feminism.
Its not some fucking conspiracy to outbreed the whites.If you were a mudslime you would've came to EU if your hut was bombed to hell.But in their culture having many kids is something common and thats how they do it.
Your post has no relevance to what I typed.
The problem is the net inflows. Low fecundity doesn't necessarily trigger some sort of biological impulse in elites to open your borders to the third world: Look at East Asia.
>GG died a slow death once the more hardline elements abandoned the project it will end up like project chanology co-opted and completely subverted eventually.
What's the watch-word of these chucklefucks now?
>"We're the REAL liberals!"
>If you think feminism is the root cause you are utterly delusional
it is a root cause, the delusional people are those that campaign against immigration but don't do anything about feminism driving white countries to below population replacement rates.
>Its not some fucking conspiracy to outbreed the whites.If you were a mudslime you would've came to EU if your hut was bombed to hell.
The very fact they're able to come here so easily, get refugee status so easily, get residency so easily, get naturalized so easily, and avoid deportation so easily is the "conspiracy", you fucking idiot.
It's a characteristic of white people on the left to believe that because they met a nice non-white person once, that means mass immigration is good.
I've encountered variations of this argument so many times it defies belief.
>it is a root cause
No it isn't. Feminism is an outgrowth of progressivism - i.e. of liberalism. It is not some thing unto itself, it's a part of a many tentacled beast.
The foundational axioms of liberalism itself are what lead to feminism. It's just easier for channers to fixate on feminism because everyone here has at least one pet nigger they love (Morgan Freeman, or Black Science Man for example) and thinks invalidates the absolutely deleterious effects of non-whites on the west as a whole.
Once again: Low fecundity should not entail mass immigration. You are playing into liberal and neo-liberal rhetoric here. There is no hard association between the two in nature.
That's rather foolish don't you think, considering that feminism has been forced to resort to weak psychological farce to maintain the parity of men and women - stereotype threat. Men and women are not the same and we should not expect equality of outcome. Also note the gender imbalance in psychology, and how our current evidence of parity has only come to light since it became female dominated.
A bit off topic but the left desperately need immigrants to stay in power. White people do not vote left wing anymore aside from the gated liberals in their metropolitan wonderlands.
If you shipped every single immigrant off to Africa the Left wing parties would be annihilated.
Sargon is fine he just doesn't understand economics, among other things. He actually has an entire series about how terrible liberals are.
The only liberal programs he is for is for are social welfare bullshit, which I blame on him being a foreigner. Probably has been dealt quite a bit of pro-state propaganda. Anyway, I don't expect everyone to be a small government libertarian type, the fact is that we are quite a small minority of the population.
Well yea I guess the fact that they gave a refugee status to every monkey that came through was something weird and you're right but I still wouldn't call it a conspiracy only based on that. I mean I could see how all this would happen simply because Merkel and others are fucking retards
>lolbertarians don't have the stomach to bring the kind of fight to the SJW that is required.
this is more true of /pol/.
people here have been r9k-ified, all they do is stay in the hugbox and whine all day blaming others for their failings.
no one here is bringing the fight to anyone by spamming trump(frog) memes and talking derisively of the common folk(normies).
>Well yea I guess the fact that they gave a refugee status to every monkey that came through
That is, comparatively speaking, literally what they do.
Compare the rates of refugee acceptance in a non-western country to pretty much any western country.
>Once again: Low fecundity should not entail mass immigration.
>There is no hard association between the two in nature.
there's something that's gone very wrong in your head here, you're denying the basics of a functional society.
Have you been here for very long? before the migration /pol/ used to be the agent provocateur and became to successful for its own good.
Now we are filled with blue pilled normies "keeping it real" You know why /pol/ was full Nazi at one stage? it kept the normals and leftists away,
I wrote a little about how the future of the world in many respects seems to be one of de facto one party states (AKP in Turkey, PAP in Singapore, LDP in Japan, United Russia in Russia etc) - all of them realized or have realized the key to staying in power is a sort of slow burn, gradually taking over control of the media slowly but surely, gradually crowding out enemies in the institutions.
But while the above parties are composed largely of patriots, the version of this we have being played out in the west is of center-left race traitors attempting to cement themselves as perpetual rulers of mulatto credit-fueled wonderlands.
He's actually pretty dull. He gets tiring very quickly because he just attacks more retards and my god his political commentary is just cringe worthy.
He's funny if you're new to the antifeminism scene, but after a couple of months you all realise it's a waste of time because everyone knows it's nonsense.
>there's something that's gone very wrong in your head here, you're denying the basics of a functional society.
Once again, there is hard reason as to why low fecundity should entail mass immigration - otherwise Japan, Taiwan, South Korea et al would have all adopted your beloved Africans and Middle Easterners on the same scale we have 20-30 years ago.
Moreover, you're repeating a canard - Mass immigration is not a solution to low fecundity, it is merely the replacement of one racial group with another - and even if you believe (against all evidence) that people are all the same and that race is totally unimportant, inter-generational declines in immigrant fertility just mean you're creating another demographic "bubble" further down the line, in other words you're kicking the can down the road.
All I remember is that he used to take a more sarcastic and humorous stance giving me a laff now and then, now he just drones the fuck on.
I prefer it when they take the piss, like how IA used to be, only through humor can certain issues be shown as absurd as they are.
>like I said this board is r9k with politics.
Far from it. The genuine NatSocs, traditionalists and other radical right wingers here have always told the /r9k/ types to fuck off and take their MRA, MGTOW shit with them. Now we see why, they're not actually interested in the survival of their race but simply in cheerleading a fat programmer's point scoring campaigner against green haired feminists.
it is in spirit not in specifics.
you keep posting nonsense though.
>we must ensure the survival of our race
>feminism has nothing to do with declining birth rates and the survival of our race
>feminism has nothing to do with declining birth rates and the survival of our race
I never said that, I said it wasn't the root cause and I hold to that assertion.
Anons like him will either get redpilled or leave it is the damage that they do here in the meantime that annoys me.
On a lighter note I have noticed a growing trend among /pol/acks to take the 2 day ban and post dubs get and bomb a shill thread lately. It is a good sign.
An alternative view is that the influx of immigrants will cause a change in the host society. Immigration from more traditional societies could cause the prevailing liberal social values to be replaced in whole or in part. With a return to greater traditionalism the reproductive rate would stabilise. Ironically, making immigration the cure for liberal self-destruction.
If you can be fucked reading that, maybe you can be fucked reading this too.
His diehard fans are instantly recognisable as they follow him in drawing false equivalency between, 'SJWs' and pollacks simply because both stand for the logical conclusions of the two sides of his belief system.
The pollacks take his rejection of feminism to its logical conclusion by rejecting the egalitarian principles that underpin it, rather than just the more toxic and self-contradictory notions of the third wave.
The SJWs take his egalitarianism to its logical conclusion and attempt to enforce it in all areas of life, including the censorship of media that promotes non-egalitarian ideas. This lead to his beloved vidya gaems coming under attack and suddenly the struggle was his business.
You could argue the same is true of Thunderfoot and his atheism.
He doesn't like feminists and SJWs despite sharing their underlying assumptions because they make him look bad and interfere with hobbies he finds pleasurable. He shares their, 'utopian' vision - he just disagrees with how they plan to get there. They're bothering him, right now, personally, and he can't use individualism to ignore it.
They shove people like him - straight White males - to the bottom of the progressive stack, where they're expected to grovel in a way that offends his pride. It's just like Bezmenov says - until it affects people like Sargon personally, they refuse to understand anything. But even now, in spite of being kicked in the arse, he's still clinging stubbornly to a load of horse shit, and worse still, he's leading a whole load of people to do so with him.
He isn't an SJW, which is a stupid term as it depoliticises their pathology and makes them into, 'just another kind of kook'. He's what preceded the modern SJW - a smug, self satisfied lefty with delusions of intellectual grandeur. I know his kind because I went to university with enough of them, and used to be one myself.
I agree it makes the host society change, but at the moment all it is doing is destroying our sense of identity. Notice how in Europe we all ascribe to "propositional identities" now, even though our nations are very clearly and explicitly based on race.
The idea of a nation based on a "propositional identity" is self-defeating - the more people you allow in, the wider you have to cast your net, and the wider your net is cast the less meaningful this "propositional identity" becomes.
Nobody wants to be a part of a club that anyone can gain membership to.
remove feminism and the birth rate will sky rocket.
feminism caused a damaging imbalance in white societies that will probably be terminal.
east asian countries have also been infected.
>Abe has set a key policy goal to maintain Japan’s population — now around 127 million
>“If the birthrate remains at the current level, Japan’s population will be about 80 million in 50 years, and 40 million in 100 years,” Abe said at the panel’s first meeting in the prime minister’s office.
the end result of feminism is niggers dominating the world.
>He isn't an SJW, which is a stupid term as it depoliticises their pathology and makes them into, 'just another kind of kook'.
I've been waiting nigh on two years for someone else to point this out. It's an incredibly important point that at first appears semantic, so it throws some people off.
Don't call them SJWs. They are leftists. They are liberals. Call them what they are.
Also based Aus anon, have you noticed this sort of lingering sense of shame by association a lot of liberals have when it comes to the likes of third wave feminists and more ardent progressives? They want to distance themselves from them but they're still liberals, so they resort to flat out lies, like the claim these people "have nothing to do with liberalism".
You don't actually know what you're talking about.
There you go again spouting off that /pol/acks want to kill every black person on the planet just like Sargon of cuckold.
A better analogy would be one is race realist while the other is egalitarian.
>remove feminism and the birth rate will sky rocket.
I'm sure it would at least receive a boost of some kind.
However, that's not the point here. The point is that you're advocating for mass immigration as a necessary and contingent reaction to feminism, which is bizarre, masochistic and wrong as other nations with low fertility have not had elites who have pushed this.
>the other wants to kill them
No, we just want them out of our countries.
>“If the birthrate remains at the current level, Japan’s population will be about 80 million in 50 years, and 40 million in 100 years,” Abe said at the panel’s first meeting in the prime minister’s office.
Abe has repeatedly said, for domestic audiences, he isn't in favor of mass immigration. In fact Japan recently tightened their already air-tight refugee laws.
they are not egalitariant ffs... can you see how you and anglobro are saying leftist-liberal like its a disease?? thats exactly how SJW spout "right-wing" like its instantly bad. And you didnt understand what I was saying. The neo-progressives consider blacks better than whites like you consider yourselves better than blacks. Its really not that hard
It's just such a fucking waste - he's a bright lad with a brilliant mastery of the English language, and of argumentative techniques.
He's just totally incapable of making that final intellectual deduction, or of exposing himself to material that genuinely challenges his core beliefs. To do so would lose him friends, prestige and opportunities, as well as breaking the image of a suave intellectual individualist that he's built over the course of his life.
It would break him to become truly redpill. I know how that cookie crumbles as well - when I delved too deep and took the step he's unwilling to take my mates turned on me and betrayed me. I was left very alone and my identity as an, 'educated, progressive guy' was ripped out from under me as it was revealed for a series of false assumptions and narcissism.
It nearly broke me and I was a nervous wreck for a really long time. He won't go the final step because he's even older now than I was then - to even examine NRX material likely scares the shit out of Sargon. He'd rather find reasons to dismiss us than risk his own undoing to remain true to his principles.
There came a point in my intellectual development where I had a choice - I could walk away and remain aloof, or I could be true to my belief in empirical truth over emotion, of substance over subjectivity, and keep going, even if it cost me everything.
Sargon lacks the moral courage to do that, at least not yet. He may come around, he may not. But until he does, he's an absolute fucking menace and an enemy of his own people.
This guy is an obvious lefty, you can tell by the emotive language. He's attached to leftism on an emotional level, so he erects this wall whereby these people ("SJWs") have nothing to do with his liberalism/leftism.
It's impossible to debate these people. The overton window has left them behind, they're still living in an era where leftism wasn't necessarily about the dispossession of white people.
>Also based Aus anon, have you noticed this sort of lingering sense of shame by association a lot of liberals have when it comes to the likes of third wave feminists and more ardent progressives? They want to distance themselves from them but they're still liberals, so they resort to flat out lies, like the claim these people "have nothing to do with liberalism".
Das exactly fucking it mane. Das EXACTLY it.
It's what OP is talking about - it isn't that they're just anti-Feminist. They're opposed to SJWs because SJWs say what they believe in a way that is so offensive, so brutal and so extreme that it makes them look bad by comparison.
Here is the difference.
We acknowledge that evolution (scientific theory based on facts) didn't stop because we are special snowflake humans, that difference races have inherit advantages and disadvantages, that maybe Africa is shit because it is full of Africans.
Do you acknowledge evolution of races among animals? or is it to controversial.
I'm actually dead center on both authoritarian-liberal or lefty-righty and I used to be right-wing.You are projecting my friend.You are too attached to your ideology and simply cant let go.
>they are not egalitariant ffs
Yes they are.
If you believe all humans are equal why not let everyone on earth into your country?
I mean, the only difference is cosmetic things like skin color, and they'll "adapt to the culture", so why not just replace yourself with people from Mozambique?
>he's not a nazi therefore he's the enemy
Sargon is not "poisoning the well" when he compares the far right to the far left. You people make his arguments for him. The disastrous memestream reaffirmed that line of reasoning.
>The point is that you're advocating for mass immigration as a necessary and contingent reaction to feminism, which is bizarre, masochistic and wrong as other nations with low fertility have not had elites who have pushed this.
no it isn't.
you keep dodging the central issue and repeating "no immigrants" as if that address the problem.
>Japan loses over half their population but at least they don't have immigrants and that's what's important
do you understand how nonsense your position is?
There it is - the false equivalency.
"These two groups, lefty libs and nationalists, both have strong beliefs! Beliefs that are based upon FUNDAMENTALLY, DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT REALITY AND HUMAN NATURE."
"They don't want to have intimate dialogue and close friendships with people who reject these fundamental assumptions that define their morality and worldview! How evil!"
"Me? I don't have any fundamental principles of my own, and work off feelings, assessing arguments and individuals who make them on an issue, individual by individual basis, so that must mean they're two sides of the same coin and I'm smarter than them! Neither one of them does this, so that means they're identical!"
"If only they could adopt my mum morality and share their toys and learn to get along and see the merit to each other's positions, despite what those positions are based upon being TOTALLY IRRECONCILABLY DIFFERENT. Then we could all meet at the center and join hands and sing 'Imagine' by John Lennon.'
This is what listening to cucks like Sargon will do to you. It turns your brain to fucking jelly and makes you see being committed to core principles as inferior to the most toxic form of individualist liberalism. Stop it!
No I know what you mean
I know quite a few people who are like this
They agree with everything on the left except for modern militant feminism and because of that are shunned from the modern left
They're the same type of people who are very likely condemn a person for saying something racist on their personal time and not condemn the crazies who get him fired
Quite simply put they have never encountered an issue with this so it can't possibly be an issue right?
Yeah I know quite a few people like this
They're useful though since they're part of the reason the left is tearing itself apart with identity politics
Japan's shrinking from the post-war overpopulation boom.
They can easily sustain themselves without letting anyone else in. The only thing they'd lose is a little GDP but maintain national sustainability.
I don't think someone like Sargon would consider such a policy "racist."
Dude you are too far gone.I can see you are being emotional about this but thats what its like being commited to an ideology.Truth is you are both sides of the same coin because you are collectivists but you are blind to it
No you wouldn't and neither would your doctors or engineers.
This is actually a pretty yuge issue that has cropped up in the US.
The big companies undercut American workers by hiring foreigners on the cheap through the exploitation of our work visa program. Doesn't help that they normally do this right before moving their company out of the country.
Principles, ideals. Absolutism. Why not be a pragmatist? The need to be ideologically pure is likely to prevent you getting any of what you want, because you refuse to ally with others.
>being an individualist
And people wonder why the west is falling
People only care about themselves and don't care that their community is dying
There's nothing wrong with principles and ideals
People have always compromised
It's just a new modern individualist thing where people only think of themselves and don't consider the fact that no compromise hurts the community
On some things you shouldn't compromise on no matter what though
Like free speech and guns
Nothing wrong with pragmatism if it meets political criteria it is why cuckservatives have done so well in the past but now you complain "too ideological for me!" because we no longer see a point with pragmatism and can achieve much wider goals on our own. So the center crumbles under the assault from left and right and you label us as one in the same.
Get reckt m80
>Doesn't believe in Cultural Relativism, outrightly says some cultures are barbaric.
>Doesn't support economic migrants
>Shits on refugees who rape women and those who protect them because "its their culture!"
>Laughs at Sweden's immigration policy
doubt all you want it is reality or will you resign from the center and jump in bed with the left i hope you do you will cede all political ground to the right with such brilliant strategy like they did in France.
The concept of individualism is only a recent development you can go to /his/ and pose that question if you want and get btfo by high functioning autists who will post lengthy replies.
>it is reality
no it isn't.
the reality is that the Right is being beaten badly, trump is acting as a hail mary pass and people here are so desperate they'll pretend that alone will win the game.
How can you reject the very notions of civil society, of common values, that created the notion of liberty and personal freedom you hold dear?
It is only through collective values that liberty is even possible, it is only by defining a perimeter, an, 'us and them' beyond the individual, that such common notions can be defended. Liberty requires that men and women be subjected to some measure of expectation by their peers, and men like Sargon? They'd dismantle it all and sacrifice it on the altar of, 'individualism' as the highest principle and virtue. And all you can do is call people that contradict you, 'collectivists'. You don't even have an argument!
God damn you with your patronising nonsense, you fucking thrice damned hypocrite, you're the one who can't provide a coherent response. Here I am trying to engage with you and all you can do is play the part of the sympathetic dutch uncle.
You're dismissing my argument out of hand, without addressing a single point of it, on the basis that, 'I'm too far gone.'
That's a code for, 'my feelings are at odds with what you're saying, but I haven't been given an argument by Sargon or whoever I've been listening to or reading which can counter your position! Fuck! I'd better talk down to you and repeat my, 'TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN!' position that you just contradicted as though that proves I'm right!'
Fuck you and everyone like you.
>muh holy state and greater good
Pre-Industrialization Reactionaries are a cute bunch desu.
You're just triggered because Sargon made the apt comparison that you lot are SJWs with similar methodologies but different targeting criteria.
I'm not so sure that the right is actually being beaten. 'Polite society' is certainly as left wing as you can get, particularly those running education and state bodies, but it's left a lot of people behind. The left has tried to make too many changes too quickly and people are alarmed by it. Trump is a push-back against the pace of change. There may be many more people left behind than you might think.
dude my intent was not to troll you or dismiss your arguments or whatever. I simply dont care enough to do all that
But you seem to prove my point ...saying collectivism was needed in order to reach individualism makes individualism the apex of society
Again. Do you really think their population will fall to zero?
Do you not think say, the decline in population and cost of living may,just may have a positive effect on fertility?
He thinks Britain is a proposition rather than a nation. Britain is the British family of peoples, not just borders on a map and a central government. Their culture is not something you can transplant onto immigrants and act as though nothing will change. This blank slate bullshit is nothing but a justification for the displacement of an entire people without a shot being fired in their defense, it's fucking insanity and he's on board with it.
It doesn't make him what you'd call an, 'SJW'. It does mean he shares their underlying assumptions and hates tumblr feminists because they make him look bad. He's a lefty cuck from a few years back and the overton window's shifted further left than he's comfortable with.
It's the same way we get cuckservatives - they're progressives from a few years earlier, who didn't understand that it's always, 'the current year' and got stuck on defending the, 'current year' ideas of 20xx rather than 201x. Clumsily put but I think you'll understand what I'm getting at.
>dude weed lmao
Don't know how to take that comment seriously from a Canadian but i can try.
From my understanding American conservative voters are very angry with their elected representatives and are looking to clean them out next elections hence Trump doing so well in the polls.
who exactly are, 'us people'? Are we a hive mind now? Trump has his supporters and his detractors. All but the most dogmatic and autistic on here generally accept that Trump is better than nothing, and that even if he loses he'll have done us a favor by taking a stand by radicalising a lot of people through his defeat.
>There may be many more people left behind than you might think.
it's the "reactionary" element, generally those people are weak and will eventually be dragged to where the Left is taking them because as weak people they won't fight back against a stronger force.
these types are all over /pol/ constantly whining about shit, they've all flocked to Trump because they perceive him as being a strong force.
Here is what historians think of your individualism.
>Do you really think their population will fall to zero?
is that the win or lose scenario?
too extreme imo.
the cost of living isn't really a factor or else niggers wouldn't breed like rabbits.