>>33313260 >Free speech in 2014 only applies to the *unproductive* members of society—who troll on Twitter all day without a job that'll fire them. Welp, I followed. She sounds like my kind of liberal.
This is the problem with the neo-reactionary movement.
While much of it is laudable, a large swathe of it has been overtaken by techie-futurist-tumblr faggots, who have glommed onto it their transhumanism. They believe the they would somehow most readily translate into the aristocratic class in a 21st century monarchy.
Neo-reactionism/Dark Enlightenment needs to purge this autism because nobody wants a Assburger version of Andrew Ryan trying to create a perfect city in the boardroom of google.
>In 2011, Justine Tunney was an anti-establishment organizer within Occupy Wall Street, exhorting class warfare on the sidewalk. Today, it appears that Tunney spends her time ranting against the poor, advocating for the overthrow of American democracy, and not least notably, working at Google's New York branch.
>What exactly happened between now and then is unclear. Remnants of the Occupy movement have worked to distance themselves from Tunney, whose views are increasingly of the neo-techno-fascist variety, rather than inclusionary leftism. In February, Tunney seized control of the @OccupyWallStreet Twitter account, which she claims to have created, proclaiming herself the rightful founder of the entire movement. The resulting backlash wasn't the first she's faced from people of all political alignments.
>What exactly happened between now and then is unclear >the merchant case has ruled the West She/he/xir found /pol/ confirmed.
>mfw tranny with conservative values that the left now considers "radical and bigoted" >mfw if anyone they'd surely get fired >mfw Google CAN'T fire tranny or else risk looking transphobic and a possible lawsuit that while may thrown out will surely damage its reputation with the LGBT and progressives
>>33314680 Niggers I keep fucking telling you that what the media wants you to think "leftists" are and what leftists are differ wildly. They show you stupid fucking college kids because you identify with stupid fucking college kids. They show adults stupid fucking college kids because everyone over 30 knows kids today etc. It's the perfect tempest in a teapot.
You think the people engaging in violence and sabotage in the early industrial revolution were concerned about white fucking privilege? Fuck no. Coddled fucking children project this shit, that's it.
>neo-reactionary tranny liberal techie 10/10 Would wife really fucking hard. Dear god every time I think I can't get any closer to suicide, someone finds me an even more perfect mate that I can't have.
>>33315331 The media turned OWS into their own tool for making SJWs look dumb. OWS should have picked one network and firebombed all the other vans / maced the other camera crews. Maybe you disagreed with OWS because you love white collar crime but you can still learn the lesson. If you ever succeed in forming a political movement, don't let the media use you for its purposes.
>>33313260 Personally I think niggers should be enslaved because they are much more productive when they are enslaved than free. Free niggers are not very productive. Enslaved niggers are actually productive and get work done.
>>33326682 >I propose that we invert our welfare system. Rather than give it to the worst, let's give it the best. #HereditaryPrivilege is awesome. saying we should keep giving money to rich fucks
>Give poor people @soylent so they can be healthy and productive. If you're on food stamps, maybe you're unhealthy and need to eat better. saying poor people can't make good choices and must be looked after by upper class
>The bottom 1/3rd of the population should be live-in servants for the top 1/3rd. pretty much the current situation, except we don't believe we are "Servants"
>>33318620 More like SJWs turned OWS into their tool making it look dumb because they are dumb and they amplified their dumbness through a sympathetic media. I agree with the rest of what you said though.
>>33327500 I was making a joke, but I have read Moldbug and he is a full.
The idea that autocratic states would work as long as people have the right to exist assumes an autocratic ruler would let people exit, but there is no reason to assume that and never has been. Neoreactionaries ignore the oldest problem with all forms of autocracy, and that is that humans are evil and selfish. Allowing one person or a small cabal of people to run a state might work for a time, but in the end it will be a disaster. Autocracy failed, democracy won.
>>33327710 Many of them did commit genocide against their populations. Read yvain's anti-reactionary FAQ at Slate Star Codex for evidence of this. yvain has changed his mind on some of these issues, but he is right to point about that all of the evidence favors democracy.
>>33327702 No, no they are not. The fact that special interest groups have power doesn't make them autocracies.
>>33327832 Ron Paul didn't get shut down, his ideas weren't popular because he's a crank. His economic policies are based on fantasy and he choose to associate himself with racists and other unsavory characters.
>>33327878 Spreading the word about your movement is probably bad for you all things considered. You never have a prayer of winning mainstream support and negative attention means you get stomped out like the freaks you are.
>>33327784 None of the bloodshed during the monarchies came even close to the post revolutionary and democratic era. This was all addressed here: http://www.moreright.net/anti-anti-reactionary-faq-so-far/
And had already been addressed countless times by Moldbug anyway.
That is because technology made the masses competitive and the aristocrats obsolete, but that is turning around, the masses are increasingly obsolete in today's high tech world and the aristocrats will be coming back.
As for exit in authoritarian world, you didn't need passports to travel in Europe before WW1. It might be a bit different since you will need to keep boat people out of functioning societies these days.
As for democracy being some kind of band aid that mitigates human nature and circumvents the iron laws of oligarchy, please explain that.
>>33327889 >Ron Paul didn't get shut down, his ideas weren't popular because he's a crank. this fucking shill
Dude, votes literally disappeared. The media failed to report him coming in second place. Even John fucking Stewart smelled the rat (but the Daily Show audience wasn't voting for him anyway). He was utterly torpedoed for Mitt. For fucking MITT ROMNEY, a nobody silver spoon faggot that couldn't even take one of the most educated states in the fucking country and run it. Christ MA practically runs itself and he fucked it up.
>>33327710 >fall of the roman empire >moorish conquest of spain >viking invasions >magyar invasions >northern crusade >turkish colonization of the balkans yeah, autocracies clearly lead to border integrity and stable ethnic boundaries.
>>33327966 The states that murdered people in the "revolutionary" era (whatever that means) were autocratic in nature, eg communist Russia. Anissimov claims these regimes are not autocratic because they claimed to represent the people, which is stupid because even the French king from the ancien regime said the same thing. The reason Stalin was better at killing people to carry out his autocratic plans are mostly related to technology anyway.
>>33327923 No, it's actually great from an accelarationist point of view because it steadily pushes all the moderate right wingers into having to chose sides and gives more ammo for the left to antagonize the right.
>>33328118 America was fighting against a communist country, and in Vietnam it exercised more restraint than Stalin ever would have. Additionally, I never said that "democracies never fights wars." We are comparing democracy to autocracy, and one is better than the other. Democracy is not perfect, but it is safer and more rational than the alternative.
>>33328197 The czar of Russia ended serfdom just before World War 1 because he was facing rebellion, but you are moving the goalposts now. "Before world war1" is a long time period that you tried to claim for your side. Apparently that time period morphed into the 3 or 4 decades directly preceding the war. It's worth pointing out that Germany had a legislature during that period after Prussia joined with other Germanic states, and Britain and France were already Republicans. Sure is funny how having a bunch of Republicans helped end serfdom and wind down colonial oppression, huh?
>>33328071 and was a joke ruled by foreigners for half that time. it mattered from julius caesar to the flavians. after that it was dead on the hoof. formerly great countries have a way of lingering as names on map long after they've ceased to be in spirit.
>>33328307 National socialism is incompatible with neoreactionary thought. NS is focused on providing the people within the state with a high degree of equality under a strong leader ruling for the good of the volk. Neoreactionaries believe that national boundaries should become meaningless and that people should move about as serfs for a class of "elite" techies.
>>33328544 Incorrect. The primary neoreactionary "thinker", Moldbud, believes that all states should have open borders and that the right to exit should be the only fundamental right citizens have.
Read justine's blog. In one of her pieces she discusses the way that techies will flatten the world economy and eliminate national distinctions. You care about your volk? Lol too bad sucker, that is outdated. We have TECH now.
>>33328616 >'Do I support the immigration invasion? Is Danny Ainge a Lakers fan? Is a bear Catholic? Does the pope – etc.
>No. I do not support the immigration invasion. I support immediate, effective and permanent fortification of all sovereign borders or de-facto boundaries on Planet Earth. If effective border control requires landmines, crocodile moats, universal forehead barcodes, or even all three, then I say, “whatever it takes, man.” '- Mencius Moldbug
>>33328616 Moldbug's idea of a perfect group of states is where they basically compete for citizens by running the state as best as possible. And while citizens should all have a right to exit, that doesn't mean states should just let anybody in.
Yeah, that's annoying. I'm pro monarchy but I have no illusions, I'm a peasant, but as long as I had enough food, some shelter and meaningful work I'd be happy. I could get that working for the aristocracy or whatever. I'd probably live better as a slave/serf.
>>33328806 He isn't fully clear on this subject, but his system is based on the idea that you can move anywhere you want. He (and the tranny in his essay on exit) are both unhappy that there is no where for them to move to and detest the idea of states being arranged in that way. The biggest problem with his theory is that he thinks autocratic leaders would have an incentive to let people go if it would hurt them. When that happened following the black death (less peasants meant the value of labor increased) the nobility used serfdom laws to prevent people from leaving.
>>33328772 Yeah the thing is many in Reaction think his greatest work is basically deconstructing progressivism but aren't as much into neocameralism which is basically running the state as a company competing for citizens.
>>33328772 Because he has been writing for 7 years and I am quite sure that he has changed his mind a couple of times? He used to endorse the Glorious Revolution, these days he believes all revolution are bad.
At that time he was anwering a direct question in a discussion at Taanstaffels blog.
>>33328970 Read his neocameralism essay if you want to know his position at the time. I cant possibly know when or if he changed it. He's written too much to keep track of. Moldbug has always struck me as more of a provocateur to other right wingers and historical revisionist than anything else and I dont personally care that much for neocameralism. His greatest work will always be the "how dawkins got pwned" series.
>>33329122 Libertarian is not the word I would use, but I do in fact think his bicameral society would lead to the destruction of national identity if it were implemented and worked close to how he intended. Of course in reality it would never work since people wouldn't be allowed to exit when their leaders didn't want them to, but that is neither here nor there.
>>33328622 >formerly great countries have a way of lingering as names on map long after they've ceased to be in spirit. They had a small fiefdom with some nominal loyalty from the rest of the HRE up until the marriage alliance with Spain, then a good run in the 16th century (though they bear a lot of the blame for the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans), then basically lost prestige in the West while they profited a bit from the collapse of the Ottomans. Vienna is a really cool city, but the Habsburgs never built anything like a nation-state.
>>33328297 >America was fighting against a communist country So, what was America doing in Korea? I think it sounds an awful lot like something Woodrow Wilson said once.
>"My dream is that as the years go on and the world knows more and more of America it will also drink at these fountains of youth and renewal; that it also will turn to America for those moral inspirations which lie at the basis of all freedom; that the world will never fear America unless it feels that it is engaged in some enterprise which is inconsistent with the rights of humanity; and that America will come into the full light of the day when all shall know that she puts human rights above all other rights and that her flag is the flag not only of America but of humanity."
>tl;dr: we are calling the shots on this planet.
>In Vietnam it exercised more restraint than Stalin ever would have.
Gee, being positively compared to the second worst communist murderer sure is a merit, even Nazi Germany managed that.
> but it is safer and more rational than the alternative.
That is just like saying that it is safer and more rational to be a muslim fanatic, because Islamists might kill you otherwise.
>>33329322 Men like Annissfaggot and Hans Herman Hoppe dream of returning to an age where women had little freedom and were expected to be maids, sex slaves, and baby factories. They can go fuck themselves.
I use the Great War because the democracies of it's day judged the "authoritan" governments of Germany and Austria-Hungary as uncivilized and in need of freedumbz delivered from the muzzle of the gun. Woodrow Wilson and the US political leadership clearly believed that dismantling Austria-Hungary and punishing Germany was needed to safeguard democracy and freedumbz.
That should make them sufficiently good examples of “authoritarian” regimes.
Alexander II freed all serfs In 1861, more than half a century before the Great War. There are many countries that have practiced Absolute Monarchy like Sweden that never practiced serfdom. The Swedish King abolished serfdom in conquered provinces like Estonia and Swedish Livonia.
The subjects of the Absolute Monarchs in Sweden during the 17th century were more free than the American colonists after your war for independence, considering all those negroes you kept in Slavery.
I'm looking at this and I see a tranny freak who got a nice cushy diversity job at Jewgle. He's making some inflammatory satire tweets on his account, and as usual his fellow hyperlibs are falling for it.
Honestly, the sooner we stoke the ovens the better.
>>33329498 >Women are primarily child rearers. Get over it. According to who? You?
In the West women can do what they want, which is why freaks like the men in the neoreactionary movement hate feminism. We choose to sleep with men other than them and refuse to recognize their"brilliance".
>>33329626 I don't have a problem with America "calling the shots" if by that you mean taking down autocratic regimes. Have you ever read The Culture novels? The only reason I don't want America to blast anti-liberal nations into oblivion is that I think that strategy is ineffective. In the long run such societies are a threat to mankind and must be kept under control.
>se the Great War because the democracies of it's day judged the "authoritan" governments of Germany and Austria-Hungary as uncivilized and in need of freedumbz delivered from the muzzle of the gun
I'm not sure I see the problem. The monarchy of AH caused the war by acting as an imperial power and invading Serbian territory. The Kaiser was a low IQ fool who felt embarrassed by his lame arm and wanted to make up for it. It was good that those nations were punished, although the way Germany was handled sucked and that caused World War 2. Germany should have been forbidden from having an army for decades.
>Alexander II freed all serfs In 1861, more than half a century before the Great War. There are many countries that have practiced Absolute Monarchy like Sweden that never practiced serfdom. The Swedish King abolished serfdom in conquered provinces like Estonia and Swedish Livonia.
I never said all monarchies practiced serfdom, you are attacking an argument I did not make.
>>33329691 I used to know two who were otherwise normal people, and simply wanted to quietly live their lives as the opposite sex, until the cis scum SJWs convinced them both that their lack of desire to be shitbags was some type of moral failing.
>>33329651 My IQ is over 140 so I consider most other women to be stupider than me and believe that they are manipulated by social programming. What of it? I thought you guys hated political correctness.
Feminists blame violence against women on civilization and social institutions, but this is exactly backwards. Violence against women flourishes in societies that are outside the reach of civilization, and erupts whenever civilization breaks down.
If you don¨t believe Patriarchy prevents rape, look at the black community where the men don't give a fuck about their families and the children are raised by strong independent women.
>>33329845 >We choose to sleep with men other than them and refuse to recognize their"brilliance". >Le hate women because you dont get laid argument It's always impressive how deep down all women realize their cunts are their most prized possessions.
>>33329956 >but that has nothing to do with whether society forces women to act as broodmares.
Society is a creation of nature, not the other way around. You can't just decide to socially condition some DNA into performing some function other than the one that it has evolved to act as.
You may aswell go and convince fish that the water is keeping them down and they need to throw off its shackles since it is the 21st century now and there is no reason fish should not be able to walk around on land and breathe air.
>>33330094 What did my post have to do with living down to your expectations? I was mocking men that oppose feminism because they are unpopular with woman. There are a lot of people that fall into that category regardless of whether you want to admit it.
>>33330116 >You can't just decide to socially condition some DNA into performing some function other than the one that it has evolved to act as.
I don't have to. We have birth control and abortion now, so controlling female fertility isn't that difficult. Also, I disagree with you if you mean that technology can't be used to alter our instinctual desires.
>Thinks Marx is a genius In one of my first quarters of university, I took a macroeconomics class and a liberal studies class to fulfill some GURs. The macroeconomics class provided a mostly unbiased outlook on both the classical/austrian approach and the modern keynesian approach, but ultimately boiled everything down to supply and demand. The Liberal Studies class had us reading Hobbes, Locke, and Marx, and when we came to Marx, it was quite clear from reading his work, that he was an idiot who did not understand the first thing about economics.
>>33330188 >There are a lot of people that fall into that category regardless of whether you want to admit it. That's a statistical claim. Women are terrible at math because they'd rather major in things like environmental science or gender studies. So there's no point in even bothering to respond, because I know you don't have sources handy and if you did you'd probably misunderstand their significance.
why would faggoty google workers be the new aristocrats? They are functionaries at best, they have a skill but so did carpenters. Their skill can be taught to others, they have no organization, most aristocrats descended from clan chiefs, warlords, military men, people with connections to organize.
Why have techie transfaggots jumped on neo-reactionary shit? Don't they know they will be purged?
>>33330188 > I was mocking men that oppose feminism because they are unpopular with woman They should rightly oppose feminism since swallowing feminist narratives is usually what makes most men today unable to understand women.
>>33329845 >I don't have a problem with America "calling the shots" if by that you mean taking down autocratic regimes.
How many millions of people are you prepared to sacrifice? Do you not see how close you are to echoing the fanatical Bolsheviks of the Russian revolution?
Liquidating a dozen million Kulaks, their families and imposing a reign of terror is a small thing when the goals justifies the means.
>Have you ever read The Culture novels? The only reason I don't want America to blast anti-liberal nations into oblivion is that I think that strategy is ineffective. In the long run such societies are a threat to mankind and must be kept under control.
I have, but since I am an actual engineer and not somebody who "fucking loves science" I don't take any science fiction like "the singularity" as anything but interesting things to think about rather than things that will come about.
>The monarchy of AH caused the war by acting as an imperial power and invading Serbian territory.
Many historians have had different explanations for who is to blame for the war. Oxford historian Niall Ferguson says that Britain is to blame for the War becoming the calamity it is.
But there is no denying that the U.S as the world's largest economy taking a side in an even-handed conflict assured the outcome and the aftermath.
Your last part about dismantling Germany speaks for how little you actually know about politics.
>I never said all monarchies practiced serfdom, you are attacking an argument I did not make.
You brought up serfdom as an argument against freedom of movement. There is no more a need for serfdom than that democracies must legalize slavery of Africans.
>>33330542 >I have, but since I am an actual engineer and not somebody who "fucking loves science" I don't take any science fiction like "the singularity" as anything but interesting things to think about rather than things that will come about.
I wasn't making a point about the Singularity, I refereed to those books because that is the attitude the Culture seems to have adopted.
>Many historians have had different explanations for who is to blame for the war
And some people say Call of Duty is good. So what?
>You brought up serfdom as an argument against freedom of movement. There is no more a need for serfdom than that democracies must legalize slavery of Africans.
Not quite. I brought it up as a critique of the "exit" above all other freedoms shtick that men like Moldbug love so much. They seem to think autocracy will work as long as people can exit. The problem with that view is that if you leaving would hurt an autocratic ruler he can stop you easily.
>How many millions of people are you prepared to sacrifice? Do you not see how close you are to echoing the fanatical Bolsheviks of the Russian revolution?
I said I opposed it because it would not work in practical terms, didn't I?
>>33330710 > They seem to think autocracy will work as long as people can exit I'm more interested in why you think democracy is working at all. Western countries and even eastern democracies are dying demographically even in their short lifespan, the european welfare states are set to collapse within a generation if not before. America's white high iq population is being replaced by immigrants who breed much faster.
>>33325756 this is when it's helpful to remember trans or not, the majority of women over 25 are all on multiple amphetamine SSRI and hormone related prescription drugs, if you weren't already nuts this'll do the job.
>>33330916 Not that anon, but I'm more interested in why so many neoreactionaries spend such a great deal of time worrying constructing an ideology from the ground up in the face of this sort of decline. There's no urgency behind it. I'd rather not fiddle while Rome burns.
>>33331484 Techy neoractionaries won't survive any revolution. Most are spoiled 20somethings who haven't been in a fight, let alone a war. They are just a bunch of entitles posers high on nerd revenge fantasy.
>>33325756 Isn't a geek someone who enjoys geeky shit? And a nerd someone who's really smart? Cause I mean. Nerds are already in power, in some places I guess... Geeks aren't exactly a thing I could imagine gaining movement and power. Because... Geeks are just hobbyists when you think about it.
>>33330188 >I was mocking men that oppose feminism because they are unpopular with woman
99% of men oppose feminism. You really think none of them get laid? You seriously never noticed that the people who inspired the fedora meme are the pathetic pussy whipped white knights that think pretending to be a feminist will get them laid? Feminists just mock them and keep fucking alphas that know feminism is bullshit.
>>33313260 >Why Does Google Employ a Pro-Slavery Lunatic?
Because she is fucking good at her job, fucking libfags. People are free to have opinions, no matter how radical.
What really bothers me how some stuck up idiots can them self 'liberal' when they try to force their morals up someone else's ass. How they think certain opinions are 'problematic' and need to be censored. Today's liberals aren't even literalistic, they are just fucking delusional idiots.
>/pol/ not getting that this is satire meant to mock right wing fascists
You guys really are dumb. This woman has already dropped multiple hints, even referencing Jonathan Swift and you sit there eating this shit up. She is a grrrrrl tech "programmer" from New York working in a progressive company like Google and you think she is one of you. Sad.
>>33337525 I think your brain is broken, man. /pol/ has you so convinced you understand "leftists" that when you see one that isn't part of the mold of straw you only think, "It's irony!"
If you were put off by the OWS circus, imagine what someone who wanted genuine change rather than a forum to complain about men wanted. I mean, try, for a moment, to consider this. I know you THINK all leftists are for racial equality and feminism and stuff, but for one moment I'd like you to consider otherwise. Consider that there are leftists whose ideas of social justice don't involve hashtags and writing articles for free on some gawker media page. They existed before feminism existed. They didn't just vanish.
those idiots do realize that these tech companies are the only reason san francisco can afford to be a socialist hell hole without turning into detroit 2, right? Unless they want the whole place to turn into oakland.
>>33337926 >If you were put off by the OWS circus Stop right there. To be a far liberal leftist you must possess the ability to stop using all rational thought. If she was capable of rational thought she wouldn't be one. I am a New Yorker. I meet woman like this all the time. No one changes their minds here until they are very old. This bitch is acting like a right wing caricature and I guarantee you she is buddies with people in Gawker (another progressive New York company) and they all plotted this either to pull the rug on us all later and say it was a ruse or to try to act like she is really a far right fascist caricature that they rally against. Yes people here are this crazy to do this. Why else do you think she is doubling down on her decisive comments as she gets more attention? To try to make right wingers look crazier and you are all falling for it. Expose this bitch /pol/ don't maker her your queen. This is a golden opportunity to make these assholes look dumb and you might be able to hurt Gawker too.
>>33338435 You were implying she is a liberal who isn't a SJW. This is pretty much what a classic liberal is.
Everything she writes is "whacky" and "zany" just like the shit you find in cookie cutter textbook progressive blogs. This is fishy to me because her twitter isn't shut down yet and she is continuing her caricature. Makes me believe a bunch of people are in on it like her employer so she keeps going. If she gets fired I will eat my words and admit I was wrong but I don't think that will happen.
>>33338542 >You were implying she is a liberal who isn't a SJW. This is pretty much what a classic liberal is. No it isn't. I'm talking about the liberals that created fucking unions, that literally and figuratively threw a monkeywrench in the works. I don't know whether she's "really" a neo-reactionary or not, what you don't get is that it doesn't matter, the point isn't to put forward a view but to disrupt people from thinking "the left" is a bunch of fucking coddled college girls tweeting about rape culture. She's trolling the gawker crowd hard. Why? Why would "a leftist" do this?
That's a rhetorical question. I don't care about your answer. I just want you to consider the question honestly, without saying things to yourself like >To be a far liberal leftist you must possess the ability to stop using all rational thought.
Why would someone do this? To goad Obama into saying something like George Bush? To trick /pol/ into... something?
I don't know man I assume you come here every day and see the irrational shit far left liberals do on a daily basis? False rape and racism allegations. This is just an extension of that. Hell even in the Gawker comments people are calling her out on the same shit doing Colbert level satire. I can't explain why because if we could explain why you wouldn't see the crazy shit far left liberals do on a daily basis. Also what you described as liberals is classic liberalism as I said and once again she isn't posting anything to describe that. In fact in some of her tweets she "mocks" unions. You need to consider the possibility that she is rusing people because she is drowning in her deluded ideology or she is simply inspired by Stephen Colbert.
>>33339758 >There are a lot of people in the world for such a small-minded political spectrum
But you keep changing your MO as this discussion continues so who knows. Next you will claim to be an anarchist or you won't clam to stand for anything at all because that is the easy way out. You also make the critical assumption that I am part of the small minded political spectrum where as I am not a supporter of the Republican party as they are now. You don't have to be a partisan hack to see the damage the modern far left does to us and time and time again we have seen them do tricks like this just to validate their deceptive ideology.
>>33340065 No, you're small minded because you couldn't even set aside your ridiculous characterization of "the left" long enough to engage in a hypothetical out of which I requested no feedback.
That is truly how fucking mentally lazy you are.
I haven't said a single fucking thing about my political persuasion other than to vaguely associate myself with "the left" and instead of just talking, you try and find some fucking box to put me in so you don't have to think, just like you did to this fucking tranny.
If you want to know my political beliefs on something, why not just ask? I'm pro welfare but not benefits-based welfare. I'm for abortion. Women are scum. Niggers gonna nig. There aren't enough unions, and there aren't enough shareholders.
I'm sure this tranny and I have only the vaguest of political views in common but she's got more fucking balls than you.
>>33340752 I can't really see myself caring about where she wants to be feminine, masculine, or anything else, unless I want a sexual relationship with her. And even then, the strongest opinion I could have would be "Aww, you don't have the type of genitals I want in my mouth, oh well, guess I won't try to get in your pants then."
>>33313260 C'mon, /pol. Former Occutard? Obviously this dude Justin is trolling the hell out of everyone and advocating the most obnoxious and extreme views of the '1%'. He's the living strawman. Obviously a DARPA creation intended to be to the /pol crowd what the Westboro Baptist Church is to Evangelical Christianity. Wake up.
Neo-reaction is the most unintentionally hilarious movement since the 70s ended. It causes massive anal devastation in every single other political group, even stormfags and constitutional monarchists.
>>33342229 I just spent like 2hours reading fake, parody and satire twitter accounts. Twitter accounts that are like satire of Neo-reactionaries and tumblr tier liberals. I don't know what to believe anymore for sure but i think this is what happened.
This woman/man is parodying Neo-reactionaries and the guy that wrote this article knows it. He wrote this article to say that liberals should be outraged at her positions and demand her termination. The article is in a way satire. Some people who read the article bought it I guess? Probably not.
But anyway there is too much satire on these twitter journalists I can't keep up. Some Asian guy wrote a shitty article attacking Neo-reactionaries saying that he has been following them before they even called themselves that. This is too much for me.
>>33343002 Baudrillard warned us. T. S. Elliot warned us. Plato warned us. We've reached a point where the people who unironically believe in something are seen as morally bankrupt idiots, and the people who exist only in opposition to other ideas are seen as virtuous and wise.
>>33344102 I thinks it's mostly a loose collective "twitter journalists" that parody right-wing people or Neo-reactionaries to the point that you can't tell who is really and who is not.
Start here https://twitter.com/jokeocracy
I don't know if this guy is right wing or left wing but i'm almost certain that it is a parody account of a salondotcom which is a right wing parody of salon which it's self is completely genuine of course but they are really just a parody of themselves.
I spent way too much time trying to figure out who is real/genuine and who is not so I warn you that it's really a terrible depressing look at journalism 2.0 or whatever they call it.
>>33341683 >she's [sic] just an attention whore who saw the winds changing and is jumping onto the boat whose fortunes are rising, off the sinking ship of OWS
This. It's too strong to even call it "trolling", as he doesn't even realize he's doing it. He just is super attracted to whatever the newest thing is and tries to get in on the ground floor. He's smarter than average, but whenever I see him talk about anything at all, it's just a fuckdumb version of it parroting shit out of books/blogs without critical thinking.
Tunney, I know you're in this thread because you created it. I know you are a sociopath and have no capacity for self-criticism, but stop joining causes you believe in. You help fuck them up and discredit them. You won't stop because you're a selfish asshole. But at least someone besides that other freak Laurelai has now told you this.
Speaking of which, how fucked up do you have to be when Laurelai considers you untrustworthy?
>>33315331 He registered the Twitter account, that's about it. he didn't get enough attention from the collectivists so it seems he's switched sides just like he didn't get enough attention(or work) as a male and now claims to be female.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.