How long until he endorse fascism ?

How long until he endorse fascism ?

Some shit I agree with some shit I don't.

I don't even click his global warming shit. Is it any good or full retard?

i do the same global warming bores me to death

I literally just saw this in my sub feed. The absolute madman I'm saving this for my commute to school.

he's a hack who follows the money

it's not the mid 2000s any more no one cares about libertarianism

This guy has no backbone. He keeps pandering.

He's endorsing a view of negative rights (I have a right to not get shot/robbed by you) as opposed to the idea of positive rights (I have a right to your resources)

Sounds pretty consistent with libertarian ideology famalam.

Its good.

TL;DR: Its is the AC/DC eletricity debates of is time.

Anyone remember when this guy used to be a hardcore lolbertarian?

I swear to God, every non-fedora tipping libertarian goes through a sort of arc, from reagan conservative to ancap to libertarian to traditionalist/nationalist

He had some old geezer on to explain that if GW was going to happen it would have happened long ago. Nature is balancing itself out to deal with CO2 and Methane emissions. I agree that there's a shift in global climate, but it's exaggerated so scientists get more funding.

Its weird the huge number of people on pol who follow that exact path

i'd say most people near the end shed a label and become a mix of ancap/nationalist traditionalists

that's what i did

the feedback from the co2 emissions those ''scientists'' were using in the models was like 3 times higher than what it really was, so all their models went to complete shit when compared to actual data. they had to retroactively lower the temperature decades ago to make it seem like the earth was warming up more than it actually was. its all a big fucking scam

Was just about to post this. He is going full 1488 faster than we thought. By Summer 2017 going to see "The Truth about Fascism" and "What National Socialism does Right"

Pretty much pic related.

He's trying to make a livelihood off his YouTube channel. Godda pander a bit to keep the donations coming in. It's scummy, but I understand why he does it.

Guy also has to pay alimony to his bitch ex wife, kek. Yet another reason to not get married - you might get divorced and be so bitter over it, you delve deep into philosophy and try to become a cult leader.

Control the memes, control reality.

yeah but I still don't like the idea of a state enforcing that, you know what i mean? I think it should be up to the society, and if the society can't enforce it's own cultural standards, it deserves to fail

I still remember where he came from.

reply

We need to keep the weirdos and freaks in line. A traditionalist society without legal rule will never come to fruition.

That is shooped idiot

I can't say nigger because im white is a non argument hahaha

So division of labor is fine, and self-regulation is fine, but combining the two (allocating a segment of the population to be experts at societal regulation, aka a state) is not?

You know it'll be a slippery slope though if the Government starts censoring disparaging opinions no matter how wrong you are, that's why I have trouble calling myself an authoritarian capitalist, any society basing itself like that will just end up murdering it's own citizens along with the degenerates.

If a society voluntarily unanimously allocates a segment of it's populations to rule them and be their societal regulation that would be fine, since it's a voluntary contract. Anything else is immoral.

Fair point, my leaf brethren. What would you call yourself then?

>Leaf humor

I think this is how most governments are established, at least initially. If they overstep their bounds, they get overthrown. I'm fine with this.

Someone tell him to read The Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini and Gentile.

It has the spicy crass zip of American humour but the subtle class of British humour. Best humour in the world - that's why non leafs can't replicate leaf posts. Leaf posting is an art unto itself

It sound pretty fedora tier, but I call myself an Anarcho-Traditionalist. A society can and should regulate itself through individual volition to maintain a healthy community, no state should. And anybody advocating for the creation of a state or ruling body should be seen as a threat to the society, and should be eliminated or ostracised in an appropriate fashion.

This society would most likely be religious, as that's the only way to regulate morality on an individual basis.

Indeed, but you cannot regulate religion ie ensure everyone is religious without a state apparatus, and therefore your moral structure collapses

Western "democracy" and mob rule make it impossible to overthrow your own government because of mob rule, democracy is a facade of choice, you will be ruled no matter what, and you can't do anything about, because the other half of the population said is ok with taking away your rights!

And that's the issue where I come to a stand still when I try confronting myself with possibility of my ideology. Any form of state is inherently evil, but is it a necessary evil to maintain the health of society? What if that state oversteps it's boundries? Are we then destined to a cycle of elect, overthrow, elect overthrow?

I'm still trying to cope with having incredibly conflicting views and a severe case of cognitive dissonance, I guess that's what Sup Forums does to you.

If you graph the temperature every hour for four days, you get a curve that repeats. From this you know that day and night do more to determine the temperature than (can't think of example) whatever small factor that is metaphorically AGW.
If you look at the temp over the last four ice ages, you see a particular shape that repeats. The temp range is 6 to 10 degrees C. What difference does one degree make?
That's not his argument, I'm just trying to put mine in a nutshell.

I do believe it is a necessary evil, but a necessary evil that should be molded to curb degeneracy and encourage wholesome values etc

But it's still an illogical conclusion, we should strive to eliminate evil from our lives and society, but can we do that if our society is based on an inherent evil?

This is the conundrum.

Got it might actually watch it and get red pilled on it.

He's a step closer every day.
>Race Realism
>Strong leader to ensure the rights of the white working class
>Remove the degenerate scum

Honestly if Trump said he'd abolish the income tax after killing all non-whites who refused to leave the country I think Molyneux would be in front of the line to run the gas chamber.

He doesn't even claim to be a libertarian or even agree with them on many subjects. He was full ancap meme until Trump.

And I think unless we find an answer to "Can we eliminate evil from society if it's based on it?" I think we'll be stuck on it for a while.

Given enough time, all right-"libertarians" show their true colors.