The government comes to women's rescue by taxing other men and giving giving these men's resources. This is the ultimate simp move.

I think you've got pretty bad takes here. Too Americanized.

If anything, it's Iran that captured the US Soldier and hasn't announced it specifically so the USA continues their search, putting Americans soldiers and equipment in danger making it easier for Iran to damage the USA.

Besides Saudi Arabia, the rest of the Gulf is irrelevant. If Iran's infrastructure is too highly damaged then them destroying everything else around them is their idea of Israel's Samson Option. They simply won't care what happens to anyone else if they're mostly destroyed. We may even see an Iranian ground invasion of Saudi Arabia.

This is why she loved him because he was such trash that he'd kill a man over a situation the woman orchestrated. Women love dangerous men who are manipulated by a woman's pussy. To a woman this is her weapon. Instead of a gun, she arms herself with dangerous simps.

The government is the biggest simp of our time and needs to go.

Equality could only exist in a world with no meaningful variation at all.

This is what liberals want. Thus a group of 100 individuals compared to another group of 100 individuals compared to another group of 100 individuals will always have the exact same outcome, thus tribes are unimportant because there are no differences between them since there are no meaningful variation among individuals. This is what liberals want and what they believe is reality (even though it goes against reality). To a liberal, if there are meaningful differences between individuals then it's because of oppression so they must work to eliminate oppression. To a liberal all people who want to eliminate this oppression so that there becomes no meaningful differences in outcome between individuals and thus no differences between groups (tribes) of individuals are his tribe and he's very tribal about his tribe. He just fails to see race as a factor in making a tribe because he doesn't believe there are meaningful differences between races except by those caused by oppression which must be eliminated at all costs by his liberal tribe. Anyone who points out the reality of genetics leading to differences among individuals is in the Nazis tribe and must be eliminated at all costs by the liberal tribe because people who accept race realism promote oppression in the mind of a liberal.

So ultimately the problem isn't a lack of tribalism, it's egalitarianism. Liberals refuse to acknowledge the differences among individuals which is why they don't think racial tribes matter.

White Supremacists warned people of Argentina's current leader. Anyone who isn't outwardly antisemitic tends to be a problem in politics.

I agree that liberalism, even the classical kind, was never correct for the reason you listed and a number of other reasons also. I believe you are critiquing libertarianism more than liberalism though (although, libtertarianisn is a branch of liberalism). Liberals believe in individual rights, equality before the law and liberal democracy (universal suffrage where each person's vote is worth the same) as some of their fundamental values which IMO are liberalism's biggest faults. Liberals aren't usually defined by "breaking down the individual into the atomic unit of society" but their lack of recognizing the realities of race is ultimately one of the biggest flaws of liberalism in the modern era.

If you know the roots of liberalism, one of the reasons it came about was because it was the British Empire's adaptation to the expanding costs associated with maintaining their empire and then caught on from there. Essentially, British elites had an issue was trying to manage a vast empire with a small population of Britains. What they concluded was the idea that they could turn all non-British people who were their subjects into peasants equal in standing and contribution to the empire as British people so long as they adopted the values of liberalism in all the colonies they ruled. This is why the elite wanted to promote liberalism. It was to help make managing their vast empire easier and less resources intensive by essentially turning the class of people they ruled into good upstanding citizens that contributed like everyone else.

The largest single failure of liberalism though is that no two people are equal but the most fundamental value of liberalism is to treat everyone as if they were equal. In early liberalism this concept manifested as "equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome". However, this phrase only works when people in your society believe everyone is not equal (so how most people were in times where liberalism was still rather new). Since everyone isn't equal as long as everyone got equal opportunity then their outcomes would be different but that would be justified since giving everyone equal opportunity means any difference in outcome can be attributed to differences in the individual (which was accepted by these early liberals since they're transitioning from a society where everyone being unequal was accepted by most). Unfortunately, this view of liberalism is merely a transitional state because after the concepts of equality get hammered into everyone's brain from equal treatment under the law to universal suffrage democracy and a lack of race realism (a necessary component for the elites to get buy-in from non-Whites, who they were trying to get to act as productive subjects like the peasant Whites), it turns out that people begin to believe that everyone is truly equal such that if everyone truly had equality of opportunity then their outcome should be equal also. A lack of equal outcome is viewed as a lack of equal opportunity then instead of being due to individual differences and even if individual differences are recognized, these differences aren't views as justifying any difference in outcome compared to anyone else. Thus, a lack of equal opportunity is viewed as a product of "oppression" since in the liberal's mind, the only reason you wouldn't give someone the same opportunities as someone else is because you're treating them differently than someone else which goes against the fundamental value of equality under the law. This difference in treatment is viewed then as oppression. Thus, laws must this change to end all oppression so everyone can have an equal opportunity given that they now have equal opportunity and all people are equal.

What I just described is the fundamental issue with liberalism, which is ultimately egalitarianism not libertarianism (though libertarianism is flawed too).

I think many liberals are extremely tribal among other liberals though, they just aren't tribal on race. Just look at how leftists engage in politics. It's highly tribal. However, the least tribal of all groups are liberals who call themselves conservative. This, imo, is mostly because these people are confused about politics and don't realize where they actually stand. The "just leave us alone" conservative individualist crowd are a group and many of them are liberal but mostly because most people are liberal. Most people can be described as a liberal who just wishes liberalism was somewhere in-between 90s-now liberalism. Many of the leave us alone crowd want 90s liberalism but in lieu of that they must want to be ignored until death, as an adaption imo, to the political powerlessmess of their situation in life. You never hear someone with a lot of power saying he just wants to leave everyone alone as much as he can but if someone doesn't have any power they often say they want those with power over them to have none (the leave us alone crowd).

If liberalism stopped begin egalitarians then they would become both racist and tribal but if liberalism stopped caring about the individual and only cared about the tribe, they'd just become antifas. The biggest problem thus, imo, of liberalism is egalitarianism not individualism; however, staunch individualism is essentially individualism to a fault such that these people undermine their own authority such that a foreign collective group will usurp the power of the individuals then take control for themselves against the now comparatively weaker power of the individuals. This failure from a lack of collectivism because of an overemphasis on individualism tends to be attribute to libertarianism though, not liberalism imo.

Lindsay is obviously a leftist. He's part of the disinfranchised liberal group of the 00s era after the 90s. Basically, guys who were more "classical liberal" decided the new leftist parties forming around social justice ideologies were too unhinged for them and they started trying to find a new camp to associate with. A lot of them went to the conservative camp because instead of the radical leftists, the conservatives seemed reasonable. Because of this many "conservatives" are actually just less radical liberals. Many of these "classical" liberal (or just 90s liberals) don't even realize they aren't a representation of what it means to be "right-wing" but instead they believe they are the "real right-wing" and the right wingers with non-liberal values/beliefs are not good people or a representation of the right-wing. In reality, men like Lindsay are liberals and are not right-wing at all.

Isn't kind of sad that all the boomers whose kids are all grown up are living in 3-bedroom mcmasions and their kids are lucky to rent a 1-bedroom apartment to themselves.

Clearly Israel did this to help protect Christians for their own safety.

All those social programs are terrible and should be abolished. It's not the government's job.

There are Chinese looking Jews that have been around for centuries.

Happiness is a terrible measure. Many authors a century ago already tackled the problem with self reported happiness. Ignorance is bliss. Someone might report themselves a 10 but objectively they are a 5, it's just they don't know any better.

Making a profit off weapons created incentive to innovate in weapons. It also allows our enemies some ability to be competitive which helps to ensure we stay on our toes to stay ahead.

The one with an N adopted kid? Yeah, ain't happening.

No. War is a White person thing. We dominate at war. We must stay competitive in war. Don't weaken the White race with your slave morality.

Being an arms dealer is good. Problem ends by not allowing American to be controlled by jewish interests.

Jews have been running this whole scored community and thedonald website since Jan 6th.

Israel and their people need to be eradicated from Earth like the jews are trying to do to Germany and the German people.

The reality is that the opinion of foreigners and non-Whites should have never mattered and shouldn't matter. Voting suffrage? Not a chance. Thus, when these tools fall into these people's hands, it shouldn't matter. We have to retrain our people to stop caring about anything non-Whites have to say on any subject.

Trust the expert! The king is an expert in decision making for the country. No, not those experts!

Mix of all 3.

Gonna be funny when the pivot occurs in the future and it becomes obvious it isn't Davos, the EU and WEF the conspiracy theorists need to worry about regarding the one-world government but in fact, the NWO is just Israel ruling the whole world.

The opinion of anyone who isn't White, a male and openly antisemitic is irrelevant. If you stick by this for everything you'll never be disappointed.

All AI seems to be trying to move into an assistant with autonomy model but the reality is that this will never truly work. There's no way a company books vacations for you on its own and picks the cheapest one because other companies will pay to get selected first so it'll always be in your best interest to never let the AI pick for you and for you to do your own research.

I see this kind of stuff failing in the future though it will work for low IQs that can't research anything and that'll be the target for a lot of this AI slop automation stuff I imagine.