Libertarianism can only work in a world populated by educated, right-leaning White people.
And even then, that's a strech.
Still, it's always interesting to see the 'masks off' moment when you volunteer the idea that White people should indulge in tribal and ethnic nepotism... just like everyone else.
I do think a lot of libertarians do not get that the Non-Aggression Principle only works if everyone agrees to it. If you are the only guy doing it everyone else will stick you with the bill
"Might makes right" is a law of nature. No amount of navel-gazing or pseudointellectual rationalization is going to elevate a bunch of apes above it. Libertarianism might just be the only ideology that is more suicidal than communism.
Non-Aggression Principle only works if everyone agrees to it. If you are the only guy doing it everyone else will stick you with the bill
Which is why one of the ways Game of Thrones ended was even more retarded when Sansa took The North out of the Seven Kingdoms. Before that all 7 were generally considered a united group so an attack on one was met with force by the others, more so when that attack came from one of the others like was the case in the book history when the pirate nation attacked various others. Theon being a ward of the Stark's was part of the fallout of that.
TV show ended with Sansa seceding from that agreement, which was hilariously stupid because originally the pirate nation was one of the groups that wanted to do it but then didn't because the writers probably forgot about the plotline, so now anyone that attacks The North can do so with impunity, even if it happens to be one of the other six remaining kingdoms they were allies with only until recently!
It's no more implicit than anyone else's view of the social contract. Libertarianism isn't anarchism. It's just a different social contract that you never agreed to. (Never agreed to unless you're an immigrant.)
Libertarianism can only work in a world populated by educated, right-leaning White people.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks this. I'm not sure how often I hear that expressed. It seems pretty obvious to me.
I think you don't hear it because libertarian people tend to be race cucks. And they tend to give up libertarianism if they stop being. But it's clearly true. The only caveat I would give is that I think almost any system could work with the right population, because you just don't need much government for those people. You could excessively tax them to provide a welfare state, a la the Nords, and people would still work.
The individual as the atom of society is Enlightenment poison. The irreducible unit of society is the family, with its non-consensual responsibilities and obligations.
Having responsibilities and obligations does not remove someone's free will.
Hell, you have responsibilities and obligations to yourself: you have to feed yourself. If you don't, you'll die. Does that mean you don't have the right to exercise free will?
A family is more important than an individual, or the individuals that make it up.
Only a man and a woman can come together to produce children (i.e. a family). This ability to procreate continues the genetics of the man, the woman, the ancestors, the community/tribe, the nation, and the species. If your philosophy results individual freedoms but a birth rate below replacement level, then your philosophy is flawed, in part or whole.
This doesn't necessarily mean that individual freedoms should be curtailed, but that they're not the only consideration. Whether retarded brainwashed mainstream right wingers want to admit it or not, groups exist. We group up to pursue mutual goals. This is called collectivism.
For a group to continue to exist, several things must be done.
The group must protect itself.
The group must protect its members.
The group must protect its borders, and gatekeep out undesirables.
The group must control who enters.
The group must espouse, enforce, and maintain certain standards, ideas, philosophies, and/or traits to keep the group healthy and homogeneous (along the lines of why the group exists in the first place), and keep the mutual goals of the group clear and followed by everyone within the group.
The group must pursue things which enable it to continue to exist.
All of the above must be followed. If even one rule is abandoned, the group will cease to exist at some point in the future, depending on circumstance.
The mainstream right has swallowed the lie that individualism, by itself, is meritorious. It's not. It leads to death, since it completely abandons the group/collective. Healthy individuals produce a stronger collective, but healthy individuals who are atomized are really easy to conquer and control.
Some collective interests are more important than individual freedoms. like survival, and continuation of the species. People used to know this, which is why certain "freedoms" were curtailed (like women voting and entering the workforce en masse). Animals understand this intrinsically, too, as many will often die to protect their offspring, or even die so they can reproduce. And yet, so many coddled people today can't muster the courage to lay down their comforts to even express that anything is above "individual freedoms".
You're strongly forgetting that a lot this mentality is reliant upon a society that still needs to survive all the basic dangers that Nature throws at it, and have hid it behind the word of "comforts". We've eradicated most common diseases and have overabundance of food in the West. The only remains of difficulty is monetary wealth to maintain survival, hence most of the urgency has dissipated. There's instinctual behaviors that maintain most of the group mentality but it's no longer necessary if one can survive alone.
Also we're realizing that throughout history most men never get or had gotten to reproduce. All the remaining ones either get killed in war or famine or by other means, but since post-scarcity has eliminated most of these issues, you have millions of idle hands just trying to survive on their own. The current state of technology has affected society such that it's incompatible with the old agrarian instincts. Excluding passing on genetics, most don't feel the need to follow the ancient rules, because why? The government also subsidizes overpopulation of detrimental groups that dilute the gene pool as the refuse adds and mixes their garbage genetics to it.
Most are going to die under this system eventually, whether the government intentionally kills them to free up resources or society falls apart from lack maintaining it. A lot of faggots here will get their wish of returning to group/tribal survival, it will just cost millions of bodies.
Absolute freedom is satanic. Jesus seeks willing bondslaves. At the same time, the existence of freedom is divine. God designed us to exercise free will.
The entire test is to choose to not exercise it always. To defer to God and those He puts over you. That's it. Most will fail.
the freedom to choose our slavery is God's greatest gift to man. everyone is a slave to something - to get to pick to be a slave to Truth and Goodness is the highest honor.
It's driven me up a wall how people keep falling into this trap. "History rhymes" may be a wise adage, but the more it's internalized, the more of a black/doom pill it becomes.
Fanilies that share my ideologies have more value to me than any communist that only shares my skin tone ever will. Blood relations that harbor ideology hostile to the health and welfare of myself and my nation are my enemy.
Ideology is a choice that demonstrates far more about people's character than the circumstances of their birth.
Ideology is a choice that demonstrates far more about people's character than the circumstances of their birth.
I'd dispute this on the basis of most people's susceptibility to industrial scale propaganda. Most people are wired to be followers and do as they are told, so the circumstances of their birth(being born into a society that propagandizes a particular ideology) does in fact have a significant influence.
He also opposes women's suffrage despite his claims that "ideology is a choice that demonstrates far more about people's character than the circumstances of their birth."
I don't oppose women's suffrage specifically you retarded goober and you KNOW this because you've tried this faggoty word twisting leftist tactic before. I oppose universal suffrage, because democracy is shit. Universal. As in, everyone getting a vote with no restrictions. That's not women's suffrage specifically, you fucking wehraboo maggot.
You are a dishonest, manipulative swine that mirrors your supposed idol's own oft quoted lines about arguing with a jew. Get fucked, goblin.
It has an influence, but retards that are led by the nose are not the ones that will prove exceptional and differentiate themselves from their group stereotype. Those NPCs can be treated as what they are. Not being a collectivist doesn't mean every person has value - it means not deciding a person's value based on their immutable characteristics.
Rejecting collectivism doesn't mean tolerating Jamal criminal and his pack of goons. Collectivism does mean preferring your own race's trash over actually valuable people of another race.
I'd rather be "collectivist" and recognize from a distance that Jamal and his pack of goons are a pack of goons rather than recognize that after getting jumped.
There's a vast difference between daily situational awareness and what the conpro fags are actually advocating - as I said, do not try to motte and bailey in my direction. I recognize the tactic and I am not a fool.
Judging people based on their actions includes daily behavior and manner of dress. Avoiding a pack of hoodrats on the street is common sense. Demanding all blacks be thrown out and claiming all whites are better than all blacks, contradicting the reality that the bulk of leftists in the nation are white, is collectivism that rejects reality - it is as delusional as troon ideology.
Not always. Genetics, luck and God all have a hand to play and some people are far more likely to be rotten. But the gene pool is broad, and both black and white are not even specific ethnicities. Even within specific ethnic groups, like say italians from a region of italy, there will be good and bad genetic lines, and the vast majorty of people raised in a healthy society will be better than they would be in a sick society. But there are always exceptions.
Honestly, claiming "white" as a monocultural ethnic group is one of the more retarded things we deal with in the US.
(Biological) Advantages are context specific. Something can be an “advantage” in one situation (blacks being less susceptible to malaria because of a common red blood cell mutation they posses, for instance, an advantage in malaria infested africa) and be a disadvantage everywhere else outside of that context (anemia aka low iron retention).
Sharing knowledge with the ignorant shouldn’t make one the enemy
it does have biological advantages, that doesn't make it a universal good. everyone else in that thread was already pointing out the negatives, so I didn't feel the need to repeat them.
few things in this world are absolute. only retards think in absolutes.
whataboutism is a tactic to divert away from the central talking point. in this case, it is an attack on the character instead of the argument. this is usually made when you have no argument.
notice that I actually answered the question before pointing out the diversionary debate tactic. You just keep repeating the "no you!" bullshit.
As for "gish gallop", he was referencing a completely different conversation, misrepresenting my position in that conversation, and using that strawman to attack my character. I simply addressed that dishonest tactic.
and finally, notice how there was never a refutation of my "ringleader" argument. Just ad hominem whataboutism.
I didn’t know we had so many civnat and lolbertarian retards here. Disappointing.
Why do all of you discuss this issue in terms of hypotheticals? Just look at the world around you. Every non-white demographic engages in ruthless racial tribalism. The only race who ever tried to do away with their own racial biases were whites, and the results have been catastrophic for white peoples, nations, and cultures. Operating without a healthy organic in-group bias is clearly dysgenic. It doesn’t matter how many internet arguments you think you’ve won on behalf of your civnat and libertarian ideologies because there won’t be enough of your people left to propagate them anyway.
They're stupid on an ideological level as well. Don't tread on me, you say. Honor my freedoms, you cry. You've been tread on and your freedoms have been continually curtailed since 9/11 at the latest and the only official Libertarian party in America is fully on board with the clown agenda. You already lost everything.
Oh look, the motte-bailey strategy employed by lefitsts. Being employed by.... a leftist forum slider from conpro.
"It's just about defending yourself" when your bullshit is attacked, but when you're honest it's about pushing socialism and you would defend a white communist (because you are one) over an actual human being that isn't white.
If you aren't capable of judging individuals, you are no better than the average jogger. You serve the globalists by agitating for their goals - strong centralized government.
I would gladly save Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell from a fire over Bill Gates, and the same for choosing neighbors or citizens.
Since fucking when have I ever defended Israel, fag? Nowhere. Your autistic hyperfixation has no connection to rational understanding of political ideology.
Boh fuck off you pussy, niggers, joos, Muslims, indians, Latinos, hell even women as a collective, literally every other race or religion out there will universally defend each other regardless of how fucking fucked the thing they're defending is.
Stop being a coward. Defending whites and socializing with whites and having an in-group preference is only as evil for us as it is for everyone else in the entire world that also practices it.
I'm seeing that. Apparently he has no issue with collectively bashing women and communists.
Which, I'm fine with btw, but since he's the one crying about people being too low IQ to sift through the hordes of unwashed savages to find a couple good ones, I think that faggot should keep the same energy and soft through all the communists and women until he finds the handful of decent ones.
But again, it's subversive joo faggotry most likely, so being held to the same standard he holds us was never in the cards.
Also, lol at him saying that anyone who says "da joos" or has a problem with nigglets is a forum sliding tourist. Sounds like projection. I and many people here have been around for years, tho some like me have different names for anonymity reasons or got banned for being too inflammatory for reddit so created a new user for this site.
I was there since at least the 2016 election season, probably a little earlier. Not an OG, but in 2012 I was a junior in High School. Not quite a culture warrior yet.
Why are you collectively bashing communists? Are you too low IQ to differentiate between the good and the bad ones?
Or, hear me out, have you noticed a pattern in them and have decided that it's fine to generalize the whole lot of them because the actions of most are disgusting?
Funny how it's ok when you do it, but when I and other people here do it, you have a cry and throw a tantrum.
Keep the same energy or shut the fuck up you faggot.
Ideology is a deliberate choice, faggot. Communists are the enemy of free men, and they have made that decision of their own volition. Judging a person based on their own actions is not collectivism.
would gladly save Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell from a fire over Bill Gates
Don't bother with this argument, we've got a lot of knuckle-draggers now rejecting the Brotherhood of Man ideals of the Enlightenment because shit has gone so far down the toilet. When respect in society stops functioning, people revert to their tribal states.
The difference is their lines of division, really. All communists are my enemy. The average jogger is no friend of mine, but I have neighbors, friends, people I served with and church members that aren't white that are actual US nationalists and far more deserving of citizenship than any communist white.
Most of these conpro fags aren't even American, so their opinions really have no value whatsoever.
Sowell has said that he was a Marxist "during the decade of my 20s". One of his earliest professional publications was a sympathetic examination of Marxist thought vs. Marxist–Leninist practice.
Not very consistent are you? You would kill Sowell when he was a communist because you are a rabid low iq dog.
It's far better to choose people based on their immutable characteristics and change the mutable ones than to pick people based on their mutable characteristics and fail to change their immutable characteristics. The child of a white liberal can be taken and made into a white rightwinger, the child of a nigger will always be a nigger.
He chose to stop being a marxist and demonstrated his capacity for greatness. But he's still a nigger to you, despite being one of the most staunch anti-communists now. Meanwhile, you think preserving the Biden or Clinton family would be more valuable than Sowell or Thomas, because you're fucking RETARDED.
Get out of your basement and go do good works, if you're capable of them. I would throw a hundred leftist soygoblins in a blender to save a few of the people I've served with, and some of them were black. They chose to be good people. That is a better demonstration of their character - part of which IS genetic. I guarantee they were all better than you, you petulant whiny bitch of a communist.
You want society to value you over others based on your skin color. You want un-earned privileges just like a gibs-begging nigger does - the difference being they have them right now and you don't. Flipping the board and leaving the same leftist structures in place is still leftist even if it benefits you, goon.
Wow look it’s an account who has never posted a thread here telling us the only option is race war
Talking to someone who’s been here since day 1 but is somehow sitting at +3, -7 after 2 hours, and he’ll be sitting at +7,-7 after 10 hours most likely
I wonder what’s going on here
Edit: mere minutes after writing this AiaH went from +3,-7 to +4,-12, lmfao
It's possible this whole img post thread is being brigaded by OP a bit, wouldn't be surprised if OP posted the image here then went running to his other forummates when he got clapped back, but maybe the batch of lurkers has changed. Also strange is he's barely posted anything for a month and then posted five times in the last 24 hours.
The whole forum has been being brigaded for months now, I’m sure it’s only going to pick up as we approach the election and whatever comes next. Or if it seems like it’s not working, they’ll just flood post gay, interracial, and pedo garbage
I assume that OP is not talking about actual combat but about day to day discrimination and racism.
No one in real life says white people should die or to take away their rights but racial divides are growing, the work environment alone makes it abundantly clear they will shit on you for being white and there is no one that will back you up.
Good to see some pushback against the pervasive libertarianism here.
We banned Spinoza for a long time, but we missed many others of his ilk. As Louis XVI famously observed, it was Rousseau and Voltaire—the former, a radical democrat; the latter, a liberal—who destroyed France. But the British have yet to realize that it was Locke and Mill who destroyed the Anglosphere; likewise, the Germans have yet to realize that it was Kant who destroyed them. That is, of course, the liberals of each respective country.
Too many of late-modernity's problems stem from degenerates not having had their stupid mouths shut back in the day: freedom was already too excessive back in those times. If anything, the march of freedom and equality throughout the world has killed human intelligence. Notice, for instance, that academia these days merely reflects, albeit begrudgingly, on the works of the very 'dead White men' that it paradoxically despises? Why is that so? The answer is plainly obvious: there has been no progress since those times, with more recent persons such as Crenshaw, Freire, Irigaray, Kristeva, Lorde, &c. simply being inadequate as replacements, unless, of course, one wants to complete the destruction of human intelligence rather than conserve what little there is left of it. If they threw out the 'dead White men', it would be intellectual suicide, for almost nothing would be left of the sciences and the humanities except people who would never achieve even a tenth of what any of those 'dead White men' managed, and whose limited successes are built on the backs of these men. Universities would have nothing to teach were it not for the legacies of 'dead White men'.
Fast forward to today: the degenerates now run everything and have, amusingly, reeled freedom back in on their end, such that the Right, who gave them that freedom and who once ruled society until they degenerated to the point of becoming indifferentiable from their enemies, no longer has it.
The answer to this obviously wasn't more freedom: that's playing right into the hands of the degenerates themselves. It was less freedom: it was thoroughly eradicating the ideas of Locke, Mill, Marx, and their countless acolytes. In doing so, late-modern scum like Marcuse and Popper would never even have arisen, and most of the users here, being liberals of some stripe, would funnily instead be complaining about the Far-Right instead of the Left. 'The guvmint called me a filthy degenerate consumer.'
However, the ship for that has sailed, for the degenerates are too deeply entrenched to give up their winning combination of excessive equality and freedom combined with a positive/reverse discrimination that ensures that their intellectual and moral superiors, who are too few in number, can ever get the upper hand over them again. They, instead, are bringing about the slow death of the human species, since degeneration always leads to destruction. The future is thus a long wait in which enough persons must survive late-modernity, a high-tech Dark Age, to see what lies on the other side. No 'Conservative', 'National', 'Republican', or 'Tory' political party can avert this.
One thing is abundantly clear: in the slim chance that the liberals and Leftists are conclusively defeated, we must nip this problem in the bud once and for all: a totalitarianism that will have to synthesize itself with many primitivist characteristics will be the only possible future for this species. No space must be given to the political ideals, ideologies, and values that drove this, nor to the technologies that facilitated this, ever, ever again. We must ruthlessly search for the causes of this present and future malaise and eliminate them without prejudice, all the way down to the genetic level. Yes, if there is even a link that can be found between a certain gene and the problems of today, say, a 'pathological altruistic gene', or a 'ressentiment gene', this foul contaminant must be eliminated from the genepool without prejudice. Everything that our enemies have inflicted upon us must be inflicted upon them tenfold: anything short of that is a grave injustice to the countless people who have and will continue to suffer under their rule today and for the indefinite future.
And that is the problem. They would gladly attack a group that never attacked them just for being a group, while ignoring their principles and the actual threat, the spear chucking barbarians.
The spear didn't come from the shields. The shields are to defend from the spears. The guy I was replying to wants to shoot the shields and not the spear chuckers.
Typically, the spear is being thrown by the alt-right.
You consider Libertarians to be greater enemies than the communists because we don't actually want to listen to you, and we know you'll still kill us all the same for being "a crypto jew" or whatever bullshit you make up. Being white, just gives you the right to kill us for being 'race traitors' regardless of what we actually do, or who we actually are.
There are also actual libertarians here to argue with. There are no communists. To argue against communists, we'd have to waste a bunch of time explaining their positions just to refute them. I know that would also devolve into arguing (most likely with libertarians here) about what it is communists even believe.
And in the current "culture war" there is only Left or Right, and anything else is distilled down to either that or worthless to any greater point.
Its evil from a liberty and principle point of view to consider things in such a manner, but with our "winner takes all" government system its also the literal only thing that matters. If they aren't on "our side," they are benefiting "our enemies." Period, everything else is just squabbling otherwise.
You can be "right" all day long, but it doesn't matter if you lack any ability to manifest that into the world. And Libertarians matter so little that Trump felt comfortable going to their conference and calling them losers to their faces for it.
I don't actually agree that our form of government is a winner take all system (frankly, Trump won once already and still didn't take all), but more importantly I don't agree that Libertarians can't manifest anything. Where Libertarians are succeeding is in actually getting money, but they don't really do well with political infrastructure as a party, because they aren't the type of people to succeed at doing that.
A Libertarian party is going to have to be far more decentralized and localized, working as a grass-roots mechanism going up. The modern political party structures can't work within it. They have to basically invent a different way of doing business.
Frankly, Trump calling them (us) losers should be entirely appropriate for a Libertarian party. Free speech and all that. It should be a raucous crowd. However, I don't think that Right-Libertarians and Left-Libertarians can actually live together because the Left Libertarian faction will always be too authoritarian for the Right.
Honestly, they should have endorsed him to get a cabinet pick, just to build political infrastructure alone. Frankly, though, I'd bet there probably will be a libertarian pick considering he's already attending the BitCoin summit.
I don't actually agree that our form of government is a winner take all system
If you get 50.1% of the votes the other 49.9% don't matter (or delegates or the specific counting system in play). You just become the elected official and everyone else goes home and gets literally nothing. No pity power, no X amount of seats based on votes. So those who win do take all, only limited by the checks and balances of the office itself (theoretically, we know it doesn't always work).
If you can't get elected into any office, then your ability to wield political power is either dependent on those who can win appointing you into a position or simply bribing with money (sorry "lobbying" is how they prefer to call it). And at that point, you are still working with and giving even more power to a political party at odds with your own, which undermines any principled position you claim to hold.
We are tumbling headfirst into Civil War 2 or The Collapse or a Race War or whichever thing you are most afraid of, very quickly. Slow building up of political infrastructure one position at a time doesn't have the longevity available to matter.
you get 50.1% of the votes the other 49.9% don't matter (or delegates or the specific counting system in play). You just become the elected official and everyone else goes home and gets literally nothing.
Look, I don't mind proportional representation either, but that's just not how power works. Acting like you have a mandate when you don't actually have one causes the political struggle that leads to you being removed, and causes other forms of political resistance.
If you can't get elected into any office, then your ability to wield political power is either dependent on those who can win appointing you into a position or simply bribing with money
This isn't true either. You can still have plenty of influence without bribes, and without being directly elected. Social and economic influence is a major way of influencing politics without being directly in it; it's one of the reasons the old 'robber baron' class were so interested in building cultural institutions. If your family owns most of the land and large businesses in the town, regardless of being elected, you have political influence.
We are tumbling headfirst into Civil War 2 or The Collapse or a Race War or whichever thing you are most afraid of, very quickly.
We're heading towards an economic collapse, but that ball is already set in motion, so not even Trumpist Super-Majority can avoid it. The question is how well can we adapt as it happens.
Longevitiy is still super-important because you're going to have to still have systems after The Collapse because it's not the end of history.
Libertarianism can only work in a world populated by educated, right-leaning White people.
And even then, that's a strech.
Still, it's always interesting to see the 'masks off' moment when you volunteer the idea that White people should indulge in tribal and ethnic nepotism... just like everyone else.
I do think a lot of libertarians do not get that the Non-Aggression Principle only works if everyone agrees to it. If you are the only guy doing it everyone else will stick you with the bill
"Might makes right" is a law of nature. No amount of navel-gazing or pseudointellectual rationalization is going to elevate a bunch of apes above it. Libertarianism might just be the only ideology that is more suicidal than communism.
Which is why one of the ways Game of Thrones ended was even more retarded when Sansa took The North out of the Seven Kingdoms. Before that all 7 were generally considered a united group so an attack on one was met with force by the others, more so when that attack came from one of the others like was the case in the book history when the pirate nation attacked various others. Theon being a ward of the Stark's was part of the fallout of that.
TV show ended with Sansa seceding from that agreement, which was hilariously stupid because originally the pirate nation was one of the groups that wanted to do it but then didn't because the writers probably forgot about the plotline, so now anyone that attacks The North can do so with impunity, even if it happens to be one of the other six remaining kingdoms they were allies with only until recently!
Not to mention it pretty much guts the Nights Watch even more. Who is going to keep sending people to secure another country's border?
It's no more implicit than anyone else's view of the social contract. Libertarianism isn't anarchism. It's just a different social contract that you never agreed to. (Never agreed to unless you're an immigrant.)
That's fair.
Nah, Libertarianism is a luxury belief. Nothing more and nothing less.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks this. I'm not sure how often I hear that expressed. It seems pretty obvious to me.
I think you don't hear it because libertarian people tend to be race cucks. And they tend to give up libertarianism if they stop being. But it's clearly true. The only caveat I would give is that I think almost any system could work with the right population, because you just don't need much government for those people. You could excessively tax them to provide a welfare state, a la the Nords, and people would still work.
don't you know collectivism is leftism??
There could be an alternate version of this comic with a guy in a MAGA hat saying that.
Leftist ideologies are based around collectivism and rejection of individual rights.
Right wing ideologies are >70 IQ and caoable of recognizing individuals as more than a collection of stereotypes.
The individual as the atom of society is Enlightenment poison. The irreducible unit of society is the family, with its non-consensual responsibilities and obligations.
From there, recognition of tribe is inescapable.
This is a brilliantly evil way to argue that individuals should not have rights or exercise their free will.
Having responsibilities and obligations does not remove someone's free will.
Hell, you have responsibilities and obligations to yourself: you have to feed yourself. If you don't, you'll die. Does that mean you don't have the right to exercise free will?
A family is more important than an individual, or the individuals that make it up.
Only a man and a woman can come together to produce children (i.e. a family). This ability to procreate continues the genetics of the man, the woman, the ancestors, the community/tribe, the nation, and the species. If your philosophy results individual freedoms but a birth rate below replacement level, then your philosophy is flawed, in part or whole.
This doesn't necessarily mean that individual freedoms should be curtailed, but that they're not the only consideration. Whether retarded brainwashed mainstream right wingers want to admit it or not, groups exist. We group up to pursue mutual goals. This is called collectivism.
For a group to continue to exist, several things must be done.
The group must protect itself.
The group must protect its members.
The group must protect its borders, and gatekeep out undesirables.
The group must control who enters.
The group must espouse, enforce, and maintain certain standards, ideas, philosophies, and/or traits to keep the group healthy and homogeneous (along the lines of why the group exists in the first place), and keep the mutual goals of the group clear and followed by everyone within the group.
The group must pursue things which enable it to continue to exist.
All of the above must be followed. If even one rule is abandoned, the group will cease to exist at some point in the future, depending on circumstance.
The mainstream right has swallowed the lie that individualism, by itself, is meritorious. It's not. It leads to death, since it completely abandons the group/collective. Healthy individuals produce a stronger collective, but healthy individuals who are atomized are really easy to conquer and control.
Some collective interests are more important than individual freedoms. like survival, and continuation of the species. People used to know this, which is why certain "freedoms" were curtailed (like women voting and entering the workforce en masse). Animals understand this intrinsically, too, as many will often die to protect their offspring, or even die so they can reproduce. And yet, so many coddled people today can't muster the courage to lay down their comforts to even express that anything is above "individual freedoms".
You're strongly forgetting that a lot this mentality is reliant upon a society that still needs to survive all the basic dangers that Nature throws at it, and have hid it behind the word of "comforts". We've eradicated most common diseases and have overabundance of food in the West. The only remains of difficulty is monetary wealth to maintain survival, hence most of the urgency has dissipated. There's instinctual behaviors that maintain most of the group mentality but it's no longer necessary if one can survive alone.
Also we're realizing that throughout history most men never get or had gotten to reproduce. All the remaining ones either get killed in war or famine or by other means, but since post-scarcity has eliminated most of these issues, you have millions of idle hands just trying to survive on their own. The current state of technology has affected society such that it's incompatible with the old agrarian instincts. Excluding passing on genetics, most don't feel the need to follow the ancient rules, because why? The government also subsidizes overpopulation of detrimental groups that dilute the gene pool as the refuse adds and mixes their garbage genetics to it.
Most are going to die under this system eventually, whether the government intentionally kills them to free up resources or society falls apart from lack maintaining it. A lot of faggots here will get their wish of returning to group/tribal survival, it will just cost millions of bodies.
Absolute freedom is satanic. Jesus seeks willing bondslaves. At the same time, the existence of freedom is divine. God designed us to exercise free will.
The entire test is to choose to not exercise it always. To defer to God and those He puts over you. That's it. Most will fail.
the freedom to choose our slavery is God's greatest gift to man. everyone is a slave to something - to get to pick to be a slave to Truth and Goodness is the highest honor.
How convenient it is that these texts were published by the church, who just so happen to be the gateway to god, apparently.
Thus the issue with polarization, the neglect of balance
It's driven me up a wall how people keep falling into this trap. "History rhymes" may be a wise adage, but the more it's internalized, the more of a black/doom pill it becomes.
low IQs love absolutes and polarization. it simplifies the world to the point where they can talk about society and think they're smart.
Fanilies that share my ideologies have more value to me than any communist that only shares my skin tone ever will. Blood relations that harbor ideology hostile to the health and welfare of myself and my nation are my enemy.
Ideology is a choice that demonstrates far more about people's character than the circumstances of their birth.
I'd dispute this on the basis of most people's susceptibility to industrial scale propaganda. Most people are wired to be followers and do as they are told, so the circumstances of their birth(being born into a society that propagandizes a particular ideology) does in fact have a significant influence.
Look at the patterns from that account.
"muh skin tone"
He also opposes women's suffrage despite his claims that "ideology is a choice that demonstrates far more about people's character than the circumstances of their birth."
I don't oppose women's suffrage specifically you retarded goober and you KNOW this because you've tried this faggoty word twisting leftist tactic before. I oppose universal suffrage, because democracy is shit. Universal. As in, everyone getting a vote with no restrictions. That's not women's suffrage specifically, you fucking wehraboo maggot.
You are a dishonest, manipulative swine that mirrors your supposed idol's own oft quoted lines about arguing with a jew. Get fucked, goblin.
It has an influence, but retards that are led by the nose are not the ones that will prove exceptional and differentiate themselves from their group stereotype. Those NPCs can be treated as what they are. Not being a collectivist doesn't mean every person has value - it means not deciding a person's value based on their immutable characteristics.
Rejecting collectivism doesn't mean tolerating Jamal criminal and his pack of goons. Collectivism does mean preferring your own race's trash over actually valuable people of another race.
I'd rather be "collectivist" and recognize from a distance that Jamal and his pack of goons are a pack of goons rather than recognize that after getting jumped.
There's a vast difference between daily situational awareness and what the conpro fags are actually advocating - as I said, do not try to motte and bailey in my direction. I recognize the tactic and I am not a fool.
Judging people based on their actions includes daily behavior and manner of dress. Avoiding a pack of hoodrats on the street is common sense. Demanding all blacks be thrown out and claiming all whites are better than all blacks, contradicting the reality that the bulk of leftists in the nation are white, is collectivism that rejects reality - it is as delusional as troon ideology.
I can recognize a pack of goons a mile away too. The difference being, I can recognize goons even when they are white.
Which means a black baby born and raised amongst a civilized society will always be better than a white baby born and raised in a trash society.
Not always. Genetics, luck and God all have a hand to play and some people are far more likely to be rotten. But the gene pool is broad, and both black and white are not even specific ethnicities. Even within specific ethnic groups, like say italians from a region of italy, there will be good and bad genetic lines, and the vast majorty of people raised in a healthy society will be better than they would be in a sick society. But there are always exceptions.
Honestly, claiming "white" as a monocultural ethnic group is one of the more retarded things we deal with in the US.
Fair
responsibilities and obligations to whoY?
Theocratic people would say God.
(Actual) Fascists would say The State.
Communists would say the People.
These are all excuses to enslave people to serve a master.
The real answer, in my opinion, is to yourself, your family, and your friends.
This but unironically. """collectivism""' just means you serve a ringleader, whether he makes himself known or not.
Says the guy who supports race mixing
I neither support nor condemn it. don't mistake my position.
also
a leftist tactic
you did though. You whine about people who oppose race mixing and you said "race mixing had biological advantages"
Don't pretend you don't support it
(Biological) Advantages are context specific. Something can be an “advantage” in one situation (blacks being less susceptible to malaria because of a common red blood cell mutation they posses, for instance, an advantage in malaria infested africa) and be a disadvantage everywhere else outside of that context (anemia aka low iron retention).
Sharing knowledge with the ignorant shouldn’t make one the enemy
it does have biological advantages, that doesn't make it a universal good. everyone else in that thread was already pointing out the negatives, so I didn't feel the need to repeat them.
few things in this world are absolute. only retards think in absolutes.
whataboutism is a tactic to divert away from the central talking point. in this case, it is an attack on the character instead of the argument. this is usually made when you have no argument.
notice that I actually answered the question before pointing out the diversionary debate tactic. You just keep repeating the "no you!" bullshit.
As for "gish gallop", he was referencing a completely different conversation, misrepresenting my position in that conversation, and using that strawman to attack my character. I simply addressed that dishonest tactic.
and finally, notice how there was never a refutation of my "ringleader" argument. Just ad hominem whataboutism.
I didn’t know we had so many civnat and lolbertarian retards here. Disappointing.
Why do all of you discuss this issue in terms of hypotheticals? Just look at the world around you. Every non-white demographic engages in ruthless racial tribalism. The only race who ever tried to do away with their own racial biases were whites, and the results have been catastrophic for white peoples, nations, and cultures. Operating without a healthy organic in-group bias is clearly dysgenic. It doesn’t matter how many internet arguments you think you’ve won on behalf of your civnat and libertarian ideologies because there won’t be enough of your people left to propagate them anyway.
They're stupid on an ideological level as well. Don't tread on me, you say. Honor my freedoms, you cry. You've been tread on and your freedoms have been continually curtailed since 9/11 at the latest and the only official Libertarian party in America is fully on board with the clown agenda. You already lost everything.
Oh look, the motte-bailey strategy employed by lefitsts. Being employed by.... a leftist forum slider from conpro.
"It's just about defending yourself" when your bullshit is attacked, but when you're honest it's about pushing socialism and you would defend a white communist (because you are one) over an actual human being that isn't white.
If you aren't capable of judging individuals, you are no better than the average jogger. You serve the globalists by agitating for their goals - strong centralized government.
I would gladly save Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell from a fire over Bill Gates, and the same for choosing neighbors or citizens.
oh look , the zionist is upset about White people collectively defending themselves. What a surprise. Not.
Also Bill Gates has a jewish mother
Since fucking when have I ever defended Israel, fag? Nowhere. Your autistic hyperfixation has no connection to rational understanding of political ideology.
Fuck yourself with a rake.
Boh fuck off you pussy, niggers, joos, Muslims, indians, Latinos, hell even women as a collective, literally every other race or religion out there will universally defend each other regardless of how fucking fucked the thing they're defending is.
Stop being a coward. Defending whites and socializing with whites and having an in-group preference is only as evil for us as it is for everyone else in the entire world that also practices it.
He's not being cowardly. He's being subversive.
I'm seeing that. Apparently he has no issue with collectively bashing women and communists.
Which, I'm fine with btw, but since he's the one crying about people being too low IQ to sift through the hordes of unwashed savages to find a couple good ones, I think that faggot should keep the same energy and soft through all the communists and women until he finds the handful of decent ones.
But again, it's subversive joo faggotry most likely, so being held to the same standard he holds us was never in the cards.
Also, lol at him saying that anyone who says "da joos" or has a problem with nigglets is a forum sliding tourist. Sounds like projection. I and many people here have been around for years, tho some like me have different names for anonymity reasons or got banned for being too inflammatory for reddit so created a new user for this site.
I was there since at least the 2016 election season, probably a little earlier. Not an OG, but in 2012 I was a junior in High School. Not quite a culture warrior yet.
No, I'm a human. Go be a maggot somewhere else.
Why are you collectively bashing communists? Are you too low IQ to differentiate between the good and the bad ones?
Or, hear me out, have you noticed a pattern in them and have decided that it's fine to generalize the whole lot of them because the actions of most are disgusting?
Funny how it's ok when you do it, but when I and other people here do it, you have a cry and throw a tantrum.
Keep the same energy or shut the fuck up you faggot.
Ideology is a deliberate choice, faggot. Communists are the enemy of free men, and they have made that decision of their own volition. Judging a person based on their own actions is not collectivism.
Don't bother with this argument, we've got a lot of knuckle-draggers now rejecting the Brotherhood of Man ideals of the Enlightenment because shit has gone so far down the toilet. When respect in society stops functioning, people revert to their tribal states.
The Enlightenment ideals were literally invented by the French revolution, and the French revolution was a proto communist revolution
I reject Enlightenment ideals .
The Enlightenment wasn't exclusive to the French, nor did it start right at the French Revolution.
Go read some papers and treatises written from the early-mid 1700s instead of shit from pro-authoritarian circlejerks
The difference is their lines of division, really. All communists are my enemy. The average jogger is no friend of mine, but I have neighbors, friends, people I served with and church members that aren't white that are actual US nationalists and far more deserving of citizenship than any communist white.
Most of these conpro fags aren't even American, so their opinions really have no value whatsoever.
Not very consistent are you? You would kill Sowell when he was a communist because you are a rabid low iq dog.
It's far better to choose people based on their immutable characteristics and change the mutable ones than to pick people based on their mutable characteristics and fail to change their immutable characteristics. The child of a white liberal can be taken and made into a white rightwinger, the child of a nigger will always be a nigger.
He chose to stop being a marxist and demonstrated his capacity for greatness. But he's still a nigger to you, despite being one of the most staunch anti-communists now. Meanwhile, you think preserving the Biden or Clinton family would be more valuable than Sowell or Thomas, because you're fucking RETARDED.
Get out of your basement and go do good works, if you're capable of them. I would throw a hundred leftist soygoblins in a blender to save a few of the people I've served with, and some of them were black. They chose to be good people. That is a better demonstration of their character - part of which IS genetic. I guarantee they were all better than you, you petulant whiny bitch of a communist.
You want society to value you over others based on your skin color. You want un-earned privileges just like a gibs-begging nigger does - the difference being they have them right now and you don't. Flipping the board and leaving the same leftist structures in place is still leftist even if it benefits you, goon.
It's not a race war. At least not in the states.
Your skin is your uniform whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
Wow look it’s an account who has never posted a thread here telling us the only option is race war
Talking to someone who’s been here since day 1 but is somehow sitting at +3, -7 after 2 hours, and he’ll be sitting at +7,-7 after 10 hours most likely
I wonder what’s going on here
Edit: mere minutes after writing this AiaH went from +3,-7 to +4,-12, lmfao
Your skin is your uniform whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
He's earned those downvotes, just like you have.
It's possible this whole img post thread is being brigaded by OP a bit, wouldn't be surprised if OP posted the image here then went running to his other forummates when he got clapped back, but maybe the batch of lurkers has changed. Also strange is he's barely posted anything for a month and then posted five times in the last 24 hours.
The whole forum has been being brigaded for months now, I’m sure it’s only going to pick up as we approach the election and whatever comes next. Or if it seems like it’s not working, they’ll just flood post gay, interracial, and pedo garbage
demonstrably false to anyone who isn't terminally online. go outside.
Living in a mostly black neighborhood is a big reason I have the beliefs that I do.
Do not talk like some faggot redditor who thinks he understands the world better than anyone who disagrees with him.
I'll talk however I want to people who are terminally online.
I assume that OP is not talking about actual combat but about day to day discrimination and racism.
No one in real life says white people should die or to take away their rights but racial divides are growing, the work environment alone makes it abundantly clear they will shit on you for being white and there is no one that will back you up.
Good to see some pushback against the pervasive libertarianism here.
We banned Spinoza for a long time, but we missed many others of his ilk. As Louis XVI famously observed, it was Rousseau and Voltaire—the former, a radical democrat; the latter, a liberal—who destroyed France. But the British have yet to realize that it was Locke and Mill who destroyed the Anglosphere; likewise, the Germans have yet to realize that it was Kant who destroyed them. That is, of course, the liberals of each respective country.
Too many of late-modernity's problems stem from degenerates not having had their stupid mouths shut back in the day: freedom was already too excessive back in those times. If anything, the march of freedom and equality throughout the world has killed human intelligence. Notice, for instance, that academia these days merely reflects, albeit begrudgingly, on the works of the very 'dead White men' that it paradoxically despises? Why is that so? The answer is plainly obvious: there has been no progress since those times, with more recent persons such as Crenshaw, Freire, Irigaray, Kristeva, Lorde, &c. simply being inadequate as replacements, unless, of course, one wants to complete the destruction of human intelligence rather than conserve what little there is left of it. If they threw out the 'dead White men', it would be intellectual suicide, for almost nothing would be left of the sciences and the humanities except people who would never achieve even a tenth of what any of those 'dead White men' managed, and whose limited successes are built on the backs of these men. Universities would have nothing to teach were it not for the legacies of 'dead White men'.
Fast forward to today: the degenerates now run everything and have, amusingly, reeled freedom back in on their end, such that the Right, who gave them that freedom and who once ruled society until they degenerated to the point of becoming indifferentiable from their enemies, no longer has it.
The answer to this obviously wasn't more freedom: that's playing right into the hands of the degenerates themselves. It was less freedom: it was thoroughly eradicating the ideas of Locke, Mill, Marx, and their countless acolytes. In doing so, late-modern scum like Marcuse and Popper would never even have arisen, and most of the users here, being liberals of some stripe, would funnily instead be complaining about the Far-Right instead of the Left. 'The guvmint called me a filthy degenerate consumer.'
However, the ship for that has sailed, for the degenerates are too deeply entrenched to give up their winning combination of excessive equality and freedom combined with a positive/reverse discrimination that ensures that their intellectual and moral superiors, who are too few in number, can ever get the upper hand over them again. They, instead, are bringing about the slow death of the human species, since degeneration always leads to destruction. The future is thus a long wait in which enough persons must survive late-modernity, a high-tech Dark Age, to see what lies on the other side. No 'Conservative', 'National', 'Republican', or 'Tory' political party can avert this.
One thing is abundantly clear: in the slim chance that the liberals and Leftists are conclusively defeated, we must nip this problem in the bud once and for all: a totalitarianism that will have to synthesize itself with many primitivist characteristics will be the only possible future for this species. No space must be given to the political ideals, ideologies, and values that drove this, nor to the technologies that facilitated this, ever, ever again. We must ruthlessly search for the causes of this present and future malaise and eliminate them without prejudice, all the way down to the genetic level. Yes, if there is even a link that can be found between a certain gene and the problems of today, say, a 'pathological altruistic gene', or a 'ressentiment gene', this foul contaminant must be eliminated from the genepool without prejudice. Everything that our enemies have inflicted upon us must be inflicted upon them tenfold: anything short of that is a grave injustice to the countless people who have and will continue to suffer under their rule today and for the indefinite future.
Wouldn't someone with a Gatland Flag have a gun? Most likely one that would tear through shields pretty easily.
And that is the problem. They would gladly attack a group that never attacked them just for being a group, while ignoring their principles and the actual threat, the spear chucking barbarians.
How do you figure?
The spear didn't come from the shields. The shields are to defend from the spears. The guy I was replying to wants to shoot the shields and not the spear chuckers.
Post Reported for: Irrelevant ConPro sperging, not the board topic
Yes, but we don't really have a 'remove any irrelevant post' rule. We kinda saw the danger of that with KiA 1.
Typically, the spear is being thrown by the alt-right.
You consider Libertarians to be greater enemies than the communists because we don't actually want to listen to you, and we know you'll still kill us all the same for being "a crypto jew" or whatever bullshit you make up. Being white, just gives you the right to kill us for being 'race traitors' regardless of what we actually do, or who we actually are.
Genuinely, we're better off without you.
Of course its the alt-right throwing it. They are one of the only people to even register Libertarians as worth acknowledging.
The Left doesn't need to worry about guys who will vote for them half the time anyway.
There are also actual libertarians here to argue with. There are no communists. To argue against communists, we'd have to waste a bunch of time explaining their positions just to refute them. I know that would also devolve into arguing (most likely with libertarians here) about what it is communists even believe.
There are many diverse points of view here, its one of the benefits of being here.
But his opponents always get boiled down to strawmen of the most extremist position possible in order for him to keep his anti-stormfag crusade going.
There's Left Libertarians, and Right Libertarians.
...
Listen, stop being right for a minute, so I can argue a point somewhere here.
And in the current "culture war" there is only Left or Right, and anything else is distilled down to either that or worthless to any greater point.
Its evil from a liberty and principle point of view to consider things in such a manner, but with our "winner takes all" government system its also the literal only thing that matters. If they aren't on "our side," they are benefiting "our enemies." Period, everything else is just squabbling otherwise.
You can be "right" all day long, but it doesn't matter if you lack any ability to manifest that into the world. And Libertarians matter so little that Trump felt comfortable going to their conference and calling them losers to their faces for it.
I don't actually agree that our form of government is a winner take all system (frankly, Trump won once already and still didn't take all), but more importantly I don't agree that Libertarians can't manifest anything. Where Libertarians are succeeding is in actually getting money, but they don't really do well with political infrastructure as a party, because they aren't the type of people to succeed at doing that.
A Libertarian party is going to have to be far more decentralized and localized, working as a grass-roots mechanism going up. The modern political party structures can't work within it. They have to basically invent a different way of doing business.
Frankly, Trump calling them (us) losers should be entirely appropriate for a Libertarian party. Free speech and all that. It should be a raucous crowd. However, I don't think that Right-Libertarians and Left-Libertarians can actually live together because the Left Libertarian faction will always be too authoritarian for the Right.
Honestly, they should have endorsed him to get a cabinet pick, just to build political infrastructure alone. Frankly, though, I'd bet there probably will be a libertarian pick considering he's already attending the BitCoin summit.
If you get 50.1% of the votes the other 49.9% don't matter (or delegates or the specific counting system in play). You just become the elected official and everyone else goes home and gets literally nothing. No pity power, no X amount of seats based on votes. So those who win do take all, only limited by the checks and balances of the office itself (theoretically, we know it doesn't always work).
If you can't get elected into any office, then your ability to wield political power is either dependent on those who can win appointing you into a position or simply bribing with money (sorry "lobbying" is how they prefer to call it). And at that point, you are still working with and giving even more power to a political party at odds with your own, which undermines any principled position you claim to hold.
We are tumbling headfirst into Civil War 2 or The Collapse or a Race War or whichever thing you are most afraid of, very quickly. Slow building up of political infrastructure one position at a time doesn't have the longevity available to matter.
Look, I don't mind proportional representation either, but that's just not how power works. Acting like you have a mandate when you don't actually have one causes the political struggle that leads to you being removed, and causes other forms of political resistance.
This isn't true either. You can still have plenty of influence without bribes, and without being directly elected. Social and economic influence is a major way of influencing politics without being directly in it; it's one of the reasons the old 'robber baron' class were so interested in building cultural institutions. If your family owns most of the land and large businesses in the town, regardless of being elected, you have political influence.
We're heading towards an economic collapse, but that ball is already set in motion, so not even Trumpist Super-Majority can avoid it. The question is how well can we adapt as it happens.
Longevitiy is still super-important because you're going to have to still have systems after The Collapse because it's not the end of history.
It do