If you still consider yourself ''moderate'', ''civil nationalist'', ''let people live the way they want'', or something like that, give this article a read. Basically, the more intolerant always wins. This is why jews are in control. This is why islam is spreading so fast and why the entire world will be islamic unless an even more intolerant group emerges to resist it. Christians converted the Roman Empire by being intolerant towards the pagans, who were tolerant to Christians.
medium.com
This.
Tolerance is a sign of weakness,
>Tolerance is a sign of weakness,
youtube.com
You can be a civic nationalist and still believe that Islam should be deported you know. You can even be a libertarian and still believe that, because libertarians believe that the government needs to protect the people.
Civic nationalism means that you don't judge things on race, not that you want to open the borders to mass immigration and let every religion into the country as long as they say they'll adapt(as in, I don't have a problem with Christian and atheistic arabs but I think Islamic immigration should end).
It is. Even the ''politically correct'' -culture that we so despise did not happend with tolerance, but due to extreme intolerance towards non-PC stuff. Racists are in the closet with their beliefs, because being silent does not trigger anyone, but being honest might get you even fired and affect your social life negatively. Intolerance is the recipe for success.
Read the article. I do not think you will agree with yourself anymore after you do it.
Islam and judaism (and old christianity) are examples of religions that simply do not adapt, nor do they wish to adapt. Assimiliation is done by the weak, even when they are in the majority.
I'm not letting this thread get slided, it's 5/5 redpill material that I swear so many of you niggers will learn from.
Tolerance is a practical virtue. One simply mustn't extend the meaning of the word
A virtue that leaves you weak and makes you submit under the will of the intolerant minorities. If you are not extremely intolerant of those who want to change your way of living, your life will change at their will.
The truly tolerant ones are always adapting, never influencing.
Last bumperino.
This place is a mess.
...
>I once went to lunch with a friend visiting from Europe: the restaurant only had availability in the smoking sections. I convinced the friend that we needed to buy cigarettes as we had to smoke in the smoking section. He complied.
Lmao, what a dick move. But this seems to be a pretty good analogy for the current situation in western countries
Even communists said liberalism naturally eases towards a stronger ideology, fascism.
This is why they hate liberals. And yes, civic nationalists are basically just liberals from 50 years ago.
It must be hard for many to realize how fooled they have been their whole lives. We are raised to think that being moderate and agreeable will somehow make your points strong, while only crackpots say anything controversial and nobody listens to them. Civic cucks have went this path, and they think their wishes are met more likely if they are nice about it. NO! The requests of the weak moderates will never be met.
Only the dangerous and extreme are forces that people will take seriously.
Bump for a important topic.
it's obvious
bump
>We are raised to think that being moderate and agreeable will somehow make your points strong
No, it's that the extremes offered are all shut, and moderacy is the only other option.
Based Taleb
Linkola a cute.
Taleb is incredible who deals strictly in philosophical or economic terms but whose thought can be applied to many situations. Learn the meaning of the Lindy Effect too - things which have been around longer have a longer life expectancy because they've survived through more than new things. It's a pretty good Progress-demolisher argument.
>Civic nationalism means that you don't judge things on race
Why wouldn't you though? Not doing it is objectively a losing strategy long term: jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk
Refusing to fight for your side means you will be easily outcompeted by a side who will.
Agreed. Tolerance has to be a 2 way street or the tolerant one gets fucked. I believe game theory has shown this already, tit-for-tat strategies are the best while cooperating strategies get absolutely rekt.
This is why civic nationalist libertarianism goes hand in hand with firm border control
There are so many faglords who still not understand the strength of hard opinions. To pursue a goal or deal, it's always more beneficial to start with more extreme demands than you want.
One person having radical demands can be shutted down, but not a group. Isolation makes people weaker, and that's the reason why hard people are always tried to isolate from others. Surround yourself with people you will not be isolated from, and you can speak freely.
Yep. If you give an inch, from kindness, they will always want 10 miles. Better to be a ruthless bastard.
Game theory is an ultimate redpills.
...
>live and let live until your country becomes South Africa and the majority don't want to let you live
T O P C U C K
O
P
C
U
C
K
youtube.com
Linkola is great
Read his book recently hes right about how shit will go down in the future
basically this. It's silly for people on the right to say they want to wish away identity politics, when the left already engages in them. You will ultimately lose if you don't ban together
Great article but you really don't need well-researched arguments to get this.
'Live and let live' only works if the other guy believes in it, otherwise you're just letting yourself to be pounded in the dirt.
youtube.com
this shit needs to spread
Go back to nature.
Understanding reality really hurts. Being fair and nice will not be rewarded.
Individuals will never triumph over groups. So long we have democracy, identity politics will dominate.
It's pretty telling that a lot of the old PUA guard has now turned to politics and even those that tried to keep the perpetual self-improvement meme going now just admit that women need to be controlled and not given sexual choice.
This 'live and let live' works for small controversies among people of one's own tribe, i.e friends and family. But when a group of like-minded radicals form a minority in a society of 'live and let live', the radicals are the ones who care the most and will be the ones dictating the direction unless the majority answers with a force of greater intolerance.
To get pussy it's probably worth it to learn PUA techniques. To make your future sons and grandsons get pussy, you need politics and control on female sexual selection. Civilization is the patriarchy, and we can't have one without the other.
Unshameful bump. Educate yourself!
We either accept Allah, or we protect ourselves. You can not simultaneously include and discriminate.
Bump. Didn't actually read the article, but I already agree with what's been posted above.
Have you read the Bible, I was reading it just yesterday, talked to someone about how God supports us killing non-Christians, 1 John 16. John says how certain sins lead to death, and God will kill you for them. So by this logic worshipping anything other than God is worshipping Satan, therefore they are viable for death because they encompass evil.
good thread
bump
people who are intolerant to pol are winning and will always be winning
Article was decent.
I would agree with you but then I realized you're probably an ignorant bigot. I hate this website.
That's the Christianity that subverted the Roman Empire. They were radicals that discriminated against the inclusive pagans. Who were the ones left to write the history and became the good guys? Christians. The same thing absolutely will happend, but with islam, unless we fight it.
I hope that the article will be shared in the future too for the newfags to learn. We are not hard on our opinions because we want to be edgy, we are hard because we put our own reputation at the brink for the survival of our civilization.
Civic Nationalism isn't inherently moderate
>Basically, the more intolerant always wins. This is why jews are in control. This is why islam is spreading so fast
exactly. This is also why the whites ruled all the shithole countries in the past, before they felt bad about it being too easy.
It's like extorting someone: There's a risk you will be called out and be put in the worst of the worst category. But if this doesn't happen decidedly... it gives you a lot of power.
See also: Killing off a witness. May lead to you being accused of murder. Or. Charges dropped.
Me too.
>I will accept you as my dearest brother if you like, just say you're proud of our nation m'kay
Civic nationalism means fucking nothing. It's weak, just like the people that support it.
Good article/thread have a bump
It's not weak unless you're under the assumption that culture and civilizations are always based on a specific ethnicity. Ethnonationalism is a meme
>when a group of like-minded radicals form a minority in a society of 'live and let live', the radicals are the ones who care the most and will be the ones dictating the direction unless the majority answers with a force of greater intolerance
This is also very important and honestly it baffles me how many people fall to this tactic.
The radical minority will always demand more than they could realistically achieve, so their original demands will appear tame in comparison and they can pretend they're offering a compromise to the majority.
Special rights for transvestites isn't really about trannies, it's to make it look like gay marriage and gay adoption shouldn't even be up for debate.
Don't give an inch to the radical minority, ever.
Race is a deciding factor in what fruits a civilization can produce. If you are on Sup Forums and haven't accepted the realities of racerealism, you're in need of some education. Go to the nearest redpill thread and start learning.
Even better when people think they will gain something from giving in on something to that radical group. Indeed, never ever should the demands of a radical group be accepted, when their interests conflicts with the rest. Rather a punishment than giving in.
Ethnonationalism is everything, the USA was founded on it, without whites there is no USA
weakness.
Interesting article, and true, though you don't see it considered much. I'm not sure this in and of itself is a resounding advocacy for ethnofascism, but it shows how the majority can be required to hold to the standards of a tiny minority--say, the dumbing down of schooling for blacks for example. That being said, different groups that are compatible culturally and close to equal can still coexist despite this, by virtue of not having a distinct enough difference in needs or abilities. So civic nationalism isn't quite BTFO but it does imply a much more stringent civic nationalism would be needed to avoid the tyranny of an impaired minority or cultural clash.
Good read, OP. Today you were not a faggot.
Have a cheeky bumperinnen Finnbro
You're free to leave at any time.
fpbp
Bump.
Be it ethnofascism, religion, tribalism... in the name of whatever, I want my people to survive. Blood kinship seems the most natural for me, althought it won't become a thing without a spiritual part. Civic nationalism needs to be extremely harder exclusive to become anything. Exclusivity is one of the fundamental parts necessary for a group to exist. If everyone can be a member, no one will be a member.
I don't personally like drawing lines by national borders. A Swede, Estonian, Russian or Polack I can see as a member of my tribe, if he looks like me and thinks like me. Borders are artificial, but not our blood.
Thanks. Pentti Linkola is a great man and I agree on his views on dictatorship over democracy.