When will it be possible to be a moderate again?
Why has our country become so divided that you can't have an opinion on politics without either being "Literally Hitler" or being a Lib-Cuck Numale?
I have nothing against muslims, but I don't like the idea of letting refugees into our country without a heavy screening process, especially considering that they come from a third world country.
I don't think that genders have equal privilege yet, but I don't that genocide, or taking away others rights is the answer.
I'm an atheist, but I don't hate religion.
I just want the world to be a nicer place, but people do nothing but bicker and fight.
It's an "Us VS Them" mindset that has gotten us here.
I don't know the answers, but I know that if the world's divided view on politics doesn't change soon, it won't end well.
But then, none of you will care about this thread, will you?
No, it doesn't go with or against the hivemind, so it's not worthy of attention.
When will it be possible to be a moderate again?
>"Normal"
>first fucking panel is a nigger and a mudshark
Never. It will never be possible to be moderate again.
Pick a side pussy.
You can be a moderate after the race war.
No, I'll be my own side.
The side of "How about we stop stabbing the fuck out of eachother, Billy Bob and Abdul, Crieg and stcy, eh?"
does OP have a moment to talk about our lord and savior Karl Marx?
>I don't think that genders have equal privilege yet,
Parroting the Frankfurt school privilege bullshit and you want me to believe you are a centrist? Don't be an egalitarian retard. Men and women are different, don't let (((them))) tell you otherwise.
>No, I'll be my own side.
>The side of "How about we stop stabbing the fuck out of eachother, Billy Bob and Abdul, Crieg and stcy, eh?"
Stick to watching sargon of cuckad
someone pls post the Sup Forums version. i forgot to save it
Sieg Heil fuccboi
>not posting the original
Educated white collar professionals are moderate. It's only the blue-collar workers and poor people who swing to the right or the left.
>Anecdotal observations from a white collar educated professional who lives and works amongst other white collar educated professional whites/blacks/Hispanics/Asians who don't believe in either 'white genocide', 'white privilege', 'muh culture', or national identities.
>don't form your own opinions
Sargon is a left wing libertarian.
I may be moderate, but even I know communism is inherently faulty.
Consider this:
Communism relies on people not being selfish.
But if people weren't selfish, then communism would already exist.
Sure communism is the "best" system, but that only if it can work properly, which it can't, because it's too susceptible to corruption.
Democracy has worked somewhat, but even it has kinda fallen by the wayside over time.
>be centrist in a race war
>heroically preach peace between 2 enemy races
>get one exit bullet hole in one eye
>get one entry bullet hole in the other eye
>racists, both black, white, hispanic, ETC annihilate eachother
>only those who don't give two shits about race are left
>eternal racial peace
I would be ok with this.
Sure physically.
But with modern tech, that's becoming more and more irrelevant.
And if you want to bring up mental differences, well those may be more nurture than nature.
Just look at modern "numales" and tell me being raised with a more feminine upbringing doesn't make you a different person.
The problem is the battles today are between column 2 and column 3. The right wing racism is very fringe in our society.
Please lurk moar before posting. How fresh off reddit are you?
communism doesn't rely on people not being selfish. i think you might be referring to capitalism my dude
On one side I want to see everyone helping everyone else
But then I want to everyone to fuck off and die cause people should leave me alone.
I think women are happier being housewives and having children
But I also think it's better for faggots to adopt their own children than make more fags through their own creation.
I don't think it's fair to castrate fags but some people with inferior genetics should be paid off not to have children.
I hate government though.
On multiple websites I always end up smack in the center including isidewith.com
It's sad, but politicians know the best way to get votes is to create divides, simple as that.
>why can't we all just get along and be moderate
When will faggots like you realise that not everyone wants to get along and sign campfire songs while peacefully co-existing?
Does this mean that asians are superior to whites since they have better stats than whites?
How about jews?
I've been here for a while.
I actually used to be very left wing, "crusades were pure evil", "christianity is a stain on the world", fedora tier. Then I came here, and for a while I was "DEUS VULT" and "HERETICS MUST DIE", gas the kikes, ETC.
But now I'm more, well, moderate.
I'm sick of the fact that your either this or that, and that you can't go against the hivemind without getting shat on.
Communism relies on altruism.
Essentially, they overthrow the government, and live in an anarchic paradise, where everyone works together, with no rulers, right?
But then who stops crimes?
Police?
Well, then there's a position of power, as the "ruler" of the police.
Some selfish prick becomes a cop, and bada bing bada boom, it's all fucked.
What value is there in allowing sociopaths like you vote on societal policy?
Except isn't that the ideal though?
Like, I realize it might not work out that way sometimes, but even so somethings fucked with your world view if you don't want peace, or atleast war as a means to peace.
Sargon is "I'm a 'classical liberal' but my feelings would be hurt if we didn't have healthcare, gun control, and anti-discrimination laws"
Modern men have much lower testosterone levels than a few generations ago. If you really are going to say that men and women do not think differently then I'll just leave the thread because you are an egalitarian zealot.
Superior in what way?
I don't know m8. His political test shows otherwise but he does enjoy government intervention.
Higher IQ, Higher average income, More inventions (jews), Less crime. In every way that whites are superior that blacks pretty much.
People like to show how whites score higher than blacks, but this user is saying that the same logic applied to other races makes us worse than jews and asians.
They do think differently, because they have different upbringings.
A woman has been raised to behave differently than a man has been raised to, so she does.
No, dumbass, you can't compare tiny inbred group to whole diverse race of people.
Asian are superior in some ways and inferior in other, for example Asian have IQ, but they didn't invent computer or went to space.
>No, dumbass, you can't compare tiny inbred group to whole diverse race of people.
Why not? Because you say so? If Jews are pretty much superior in every way vs whites then why shouldn't we let them dominate our culture/government?
>They do think differently, because they have different upbringings.
Goodbye.
>People like to show how whites score higher than blacks, but this user is saying that the same logic applied to other races makes us worse than jews and asians.
The difference between american whites and blacks is 3 times the difference between jews/asians and american whites. African blacks with no white mixture are even worse than american blacks. Look at whites and asians are both capable of running high quality countries.
Only insecure dumb-asses argue about supremacy. It's not about supremacy it's about societal cohesion and wanting to preserve your heritage. The black(and to a lesser extant mestizo) argument is always referenced is to show why they are very much incompatible with our society and because their is a drastic difference between blacks and non blacks showing that racial differences do exist.
no, that's not right. that's anarchism. communism is not anarchism.
communism isn't anti-government, it's anti-capital.
He's just a Libertarian that thinks poor people should get a little help at least
This comic is drivel. A sensationalist overreaction that trivializes the actual political landscape, including the various points of view and all the issues between them, especially the issues it attempts to portray.
...
I never said I didn't want peace. I'm saying that there are different groups who are never going to be able to peacefully co-exist and it's stupid for us to try. Peace can only happen when these groups are totally separate from each other, or when one destroys the other.
You don't get a choice. Violence and the capacity for it is the true source of all power. If you can't or won't use violence to have others do what you believe to be right, then you will always be under the control or protection of those who can and will.
fpbp
kill all coal burning whores
So then explain to me what communism is?
Because everytime, there's never a straight answer.
>When will it be possible to be a moderate again?
It'll all be normal once we give the far leftists their well-deserved helicopter rides.
Ayy we have the same views.
You have just glimpsed the bitter truth of humanity. Hoping that all people will somehow be more understanding towards each other is nothing but a pipe dream. Only a very small percentage of people will ever think like you, while everyone else follows a tribal mindset that has been in place for hundreds of thousands of years.
Our present society claims to be more 'tolerant' of certain differences, but only with authoritarian restrictions that place one type of discrimination instead of another. That's the only way it will function.
It isn't a nice thing, but you must acknowledge that all you or anyone else can do is to minimize potential conflicts between people. That obviously won't ever happen by preaching 'tolerance' (as the radicals will then proceed to shout down and attack anyone who disagrees as literally Hitler). That's why ethnostates with inviolate principles of society would probably work best. Some areas should be set off as multicultural utopias, with their identity not ethnic but political, as a sort of pressure release valve for the rest of the world. Under that system, maybe over a long time we will become more understanding and it will no longer be necessary, but we probably won't be ready for that for thousands of years.
>Some areas should be set off as multicultural utopias, with their identity not ethnic but political, as a sort of pressure release valve for the rest of the world.
That's exactly what America was supposed to be in practice, but look where we are. Half the country would disagree with that premise, while the other half would like to continue expansion of the empire to destroy ethnic states around the world.
Your model is flawed because those naturally born into those political-identity states may very well be the morons who can't think outside of their ethnic identity, leading to tension inside the political state like BLM, etc.
>That's exactly what America was supposed to be
In practice. Funny how people like to cut out the details that don't suit their narrative at every level of society.
Are you denying that people around the world haven't flocked to America for centuries for political reasons? There's a reason it has the reputation as the bastion of freedom around the world, even if that may not be totally accurate.
Are you denying that the founding father intended the country to be for white people?
>More inventions
You're an idiot.
Are you me?
I hate the idea of forcing someone else to pay me just to do something--I'd rather just help them out--but I also recognize that the exchange is necessary to continue to provide help.
I'm thinking more along the lines of continual exchange to allow the system to survive dissent. If a person hates being in the multicultural zone, he can move to an ethnostate. If a person hates the ethnostate, he can move to the multiculti zone.
That is, there would be a black ethnostate in the South, a white ethnostate in the Northern Midwest and Rockies, and then the rest of the country could be left as is, with exchanges happening organically to prevent any system from outright collapsing. Strict border controls would be necessary, but I think that system would have the best chance of surviving.
I think that the US survived as long as it did because up until recently (1930s, probably, after California was fully colonized by the dust bowlers), we weren't quite 'full' and people could always start their own lives away from it all on the frontier. Now there isn't any way to opt out of our system, which is a huge centrifugal force.
>We take these truths to be self-evident - that all men are created equal....
I think that the country was intended for whites, but especially back then, they had very disparate cultures. They were only really united by Christianity and Christian morals, and even then there were huge confessional differences.
Nowadays, those differences are reduced within racial groups, but not between different races. "White" culture is largely following its own path, but our morals have stayed the same (under withering assault by universalists, mind you), just as other races have their own moral codes, too.
To be fair, that was before God, not in the temporal realm.
They meant all white men and they meant under the law. They probably didn't even think of blacks as human. Whether you disagree with them or not you are kidding if you say the founding fathers were really egalitarians.
>I can't distinguish individuals from a collective!
Probably explains why Canada is going full-blown Marxist. Some of the founding fathers were genuine egalitarians while others were not. Some even thought the issue of slavery needed to be "settled" back then. Go ahead and look it up.
>That is, there would be a black ethnostate in the South, a white ethnostate in the Northern Midwest and Rockies, and then the rest of the country could be left as is, with exchanges happening organically to prevent any system from outright collapsing. Strict border controls would be necessary, but I think that system would have the best chance of surviving.
But then what about the natural resources in different regions? The parks? The "my family owned this land for centuries"? The creation of such a state may not be ethical itself, and unfortunately I'm not a Machiavellian. I think you may have a point about people always being able to "move West" when they had problems in the past. When I think about it, that kept national identity a bit under wraps through the 30s, until we had the global fight against Communism to keep everyone patriotic. The past few decades we've been exploring what it really means to live together without a global threat looming its head over us, actively at least.
I think a lot of the ethnic tension in America has two major components: one is historical and I think has to do with human nature. But two is that I think there really is a spectre of the Cold War haunting the US now, as Marxists have dominated Academia for almost an entire life cycle, and their seeds are finally blossoming.
Whites are more able to assimilate with each other because they have a more similar foundation for their cultures and are genetically closer. As it is people always stick to their tribe. As nations become more ethnically diverse then politics will line up along racial lines. I don't think we need to purge people to create a completely homogeneous country but that a nation needs to retain a solid majority upwards from 85%. The immigration reforms of the 60's were terrible for america and the current migrant crisis is terrible for Europe. A states first responsibility is supposed to be protecting it's people and letting in mass amounts of colonizers is the opposite.
oh my kek my sides are in heaven
>>I can't distinguish individuals from a collective!
>Probably explains why Canada is going full-blown Marxist. Some of the founding fathers were genuine egalitarians while others were not. Some even thought the issue of slavery needed to be "settled" back then. Go ahead and look it up.
>Thomas Jefferson’s views were typical of his generation. Despite what he wrote in the Declaration, he did not think Blacks were equal to Whites, noting that “in general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection.”[4] He hoped slavery would be abolished some day, but “when freed, he [the Negro] is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.”[5] Jefferson also expected whites eventually to displace all of the Indians of the New World. The United States, he wrote, was to be “the nest from which all America, North and South, is to be peopled,”[6] and the hemisphere was to be entirely European: “… nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.”
Even up to lincoln the plan was to deport the blacks.
>James Madison agreed with Jefferson that the only solution to the race problem was to free the slaves and expel them: “To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U.S. freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population.”[9] He proposed that the federal government buy up the entire slave population and transport it overseas. After two terms in office, he served as chief executive of the American Colonization Society, which was established to repatriate Blacks.[10]
>Benjamin Franklin wrote little about race, but had a sense of racial loyalty that was typical of his time:
>[T]he Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably [sic] very small… . I could wish their Numbers were increased…. But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
>Franklin therefore opposed bringing more Blacks to the United States[11]:
>[W]hy increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America?"
>John Dickinson was a Delaware delegate to the constitutional convention and wrote so effectively in favor of independence that he is known as the “Penman of the Revolution.” As was common in his time, he believed that homogeneity, not diversity, was the new republic’s greatest strength[12]:
>Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?
>Dickinson’s views were echoed in the second of The Federalist Papers, in which John Jay gave thanks that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people,”[13]
>a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs."
his positions are anti-libertarian
>I have nothing against muslims
Why not?
>After the Constitution was ratified in 1788, Americans had to decide who they would allow to become part of their new country. The very first citizenship law, passed in 1790, specified that only “free white persons” could be naturalized,[14] and immigration laws designed to keep the country overwhelmingly white were repealed only in 1965.
>Alexander Hamilton was suspicious even of European immigrants, writing that “the influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.”[15] John Quincy Adams explained to a German nobleman that if Europeans were to immigrate, “they must cast off the European skin, never to resume it.”
You are deluded if you really try to say the founding fathers were not "racist" but egalitarians and in favour of multiculturalism.
That's exactly what I said, lad.
Natural resources are the tough part. But over the long run, I think that the process of setting up the ethnostates, while extremely difficult and probably bloody at times, will be worth it in reducing overall human suffering. It will be helped by starting in areas that are predominantly white--then you can just pay off the 1% of non-whites to move or have them sterilized with compensation.
I'm under no illusion that the process would be extraordinarily challenging, but in my mind, it is a necessary evil.
And I also agree about the problem in academia. That's been key in polarizing the situation so much that discussion outside of entrenched viewpoints becomes impossible.
meant for
I would certainly consider myself a racist, but that's not how I view everything. And I never said anything to the contrary about the founders. All I said was that it isn't exactly accurate to say that whites only have one culture; of course it's absurd to extend that to the mess we're in now with cultural Marxism. You're arguing with a mirror, friend.
Still, I can identify a person who isn't white as being genuinely good, kind, and worthy, while recognizing at the same time group trends.
This is where the other burger called you out. It isn't wrong to judge individuals based on their own merit, separate from wider views.
Well, shit.
Anyway, I have to go, but it's been a nice discussion with you, Certainly one of the better ones on Sup Forums, at least for me.
This in a higher resolution pls
Yea I think you need to judge individuals as an individual but also groups as groups.
>I'm fucking white
Gets me everytime. Higher Quality here.
I'll just leave this here
>you're either with us, or against us
Not this shit again
Thx mate