Lol so true

lol so true

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Cenk Uighur is a mean person

okay

>any of those
>classic liberal
I fucking hate Marxists so much
>take away the word leftwing, progressive, and liberal from Ancap and libertarians
>give the other names to retarded teenagers

this doesnt seem like an insult

...

yeah that's pretty much me ? should i get out /pol ? i dont like ben shappiro and pragerU videos, and not because of their jewry, i just hate their retoric and pov's... Also think Sam harris has his head stuck in a hole despite having an admirable intellect

No, you're in the right place surrounded by your own kind - brainlets.

Sam Harris is interesting to listen to but he was a big Hillary hawk. He's an intellectual progressive version of Ben Shapiro. A lot of "classical liberals" do like him though when he is a major statist.

Very smart indeed but way too arrogant to give Trump or social conservatives the benefit of the doubt.

I like all that alt-right stuff. Socialism is indeed bad even if it's of the National variety.

no molymeme?

seriously what the fuck do u mean by this op?

Aside from Harris being a cuck, what???

The rest are based

...

weConGoy

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this picture

I think he means you're a liberal faggot and you need to go back to plebbit.

Sup Forums is a statist right wing authoritarian board that doesn't tolerate homosexual nigger loving degenerates that shove dildos up their ass.

We need to stop the ideological purity spiral and accept these people as useful for white nationalism.

What these cucks don't realize is this 'classical liberalism' shit is a sideline ideology, it has no genuine force, it has no genuine ideas, it is just smug condescension of 'Wow, look at these idiots on the left in their identity politics, they're crazy! And wow, look at these idiots on the right in their identity politics, don't they know they're the same as the left! If only we could all just be individuals and stop with this collectivism, everything would be great!"

It is the alt right who holds rallies, it is the alt right who actually makes a tangible effort at fighting radical leftism, it is the alt right who actually has the gumption and ideology necessary to prevent our countries from becoming a 3rd world chocolate pudding.

These people are useful in that we share the same enemy, and they can often times be brought over to our side after exposure to enough information, but let's call a spade a spade here.

I like all this shit

You. Have. To. Go. Back.

>the younger generation are cultural libertarians

fixed

''Meme'' obviously made by retarded butthurt leftypol faggots.
Usually the meme is just a quick jab at a demographic. Pic related, this is how you do the joke, just without the watermark.

These leftist morons have no idea how to do memes and jokes. They see a funny meme like this and they go ''ha, I get it, I can do that!'' and then they simply list a bunch of things.
Imagine if I made a ''communist starter pack'' and it was just a bunch of communist speaker faces, random quotes like ''seize the means of production'', a swastika striped out, some pro-commie videos etc. Where is the fucking joke? You're just listing things, and they're accurate.

>anti-islam
>pro pseudo-intellectual atheist kike
lol no, Islam is based.

Peterson and Rubin refer to themselves as classic liberals.

The people in the pic are essentially leftist liberals though.

Why are you getting triggered? You're not a classical liberal are you?

>no Hitler

Can you tell the difference?
>Conservative
Said a mean thing and offended fee fees
>ISIS
Cut off a child's head for fun

BTFO

Hitchens was a neocon though

I respect their viewpoints for the most part, however they're almost always on the side of civnat which are factually more divided and less tribal than their homogenous counterparts. And taking the tribalism out of a society, is counterproductive to nationalism.

>When you have to make shit up to prove a point

>he thinks ISIS (a confirmed CIA backed psyop) is Islam
Brainwashed pleb. Isis only serves as a tool for Israeli/Deep state geo political goals.

Anyway, most conservatives would go full Shariah if they could.

What is made up?

You don't understand, retard. I am not a ''classical liberal'' and I don't really like anyone in that pic except Christipher Hitchens.
I am not making any judgemts on ''classical liberals'', retard. I am telling you that the pic was made by butthurt leftists, the pic is straight from leftypol.
The pic was obviously not made by a right winger.

When Sup Forums makes fun of civic nationalists it's much more brutal. When leftypol makes fun people like that they're just butthurt that these guys aren't fully on their side. The entire ''joke'' of the pic is that they listed a bunch of things and opinions that all those people share.
The ''joke'' isn't that classical liberals are bad, the ''joke'' is that leftypol is annoyed by these people.

Pretty much everyone in that pic is a degenerate kike trying to steer the "alt-right" towards the Zionist agenda. Gonna side with leftypol on this one if true.

>Chunk Hunger

Harris is good at times, e.g. Charles Murray episode, but he's utterly intolerable cucked to such a degree that I have half a mind to think he gets paid. He's so anti-Trump and pro-climate change every time he goes on one of those normie threads I almost delete his podcast from my app.

You just don't get it, retard. So I made a visual representation of what I am talking about.

I just said I'm going to side with leftypol if true, clearly i don't care.

my sides

What the fuck does that even mean for you to side with leftypol, retard?
>oh yeah, these ARE people who call themselves classical liberals haha, and these quotes are what they say haha, well played leftypol :DDDDD
Is that it?
You're impressed by someone making a list of civic nationalists?

cmon you can't actually think communism is going to work. It was just a tool for the Jews and later other people, to consolidate their power. If you plan on ruling it i can understand but you can't honestly expect life to be good for the plebeians.

I don't get it OP. Those people are cluing people in on vital things. A large number of those people will
1. Come here and get crimson-pilled
2. Come into contact with someone on here and get crimson-pilled.

It means i agree with the meme, you're trying to make me disagree with it by affiliating it with leftypol instead of presenting arguments as to why i should be against that meme based on it's content.
>wow its made by leftists how can you like it xD
Is not an argument.

>You're impressed by someone making a list of civic nationalists?
No. Are you supportive of civ nat Jews?

All those quotes are true. I don't understand this shit meme is it trying to make classical liberals look good or bad

This Islam would work fine with Whites as long as we were racially segregated.

You really are a brainlet. The problem with the ''''''''''''''meme''''''''''''''' is that it doesn't say anything. Whatever judgement you made about civic nationalist cucks is just you.
There is no civic nationalist who is going to look at the '''''''''''''meme''''''''''''''' and feel insulted by it, because all it does is list people they listen to.

Find a civic nationalist and send them this ''''''''''''''meme'''''''''''''. Ask them what they think about it.

Because it's painful to look at that mosaic of kikes knowing that each one of them is just a distraction trying to veer normies down another false belief system.

right wing libertarianism (that of which was used by the found fathers, anyway) involves keeping the government as an 'use only in emergency' button, so that it cannot be misused, leaving national expansion for civilians to push. The gov't would only ever be called upon to defend the people of the nation first, and the state second. It was a nation of laws, rather than a nation of people; it was because of this that our nation's constitution is one of the longest lasting in the world, the only reason as to why things are the way they are is because of -

1) society; since ww2 news could only ever be gotten through one or two mainstream sources (tv/radio), thus opening up for groups like the kikes to have absolute dominance over our culture, our view on law and order, and thus our constitution.

Look at Thomas Jefferson's (amongst a large number of the other founding father's) statements on race and it'd be clear that they were just as white nationalist as the rest of us.

Hell, the jews were banned from entry into the united states for a good reason.

I have a lot more faith in the US constitution in an environment where discourse is decentralized than I do an authoritarian society, though however when there is no decentralization of discourse is possible, we technically already live in an authoritarian nation

It doesn't say anything to civnats no, but they'll always be cucks irregardless of a meme. It's like saying send a nigger this how to spot a criminal starterpack. Are they going to suddenly not be criminals now because of that meme?

A nigger will be insulted by the meme.
A civic nationalist will just go ''oh hey, I listen to 90% of these people, nice meme bro XDDDD''

The Middle East and North Africa used to wealthy and advanced parts of the Western World. Islam changed that.

back u go

To avoid the stigma of conservative or the shame of libertarian. It's a weasel word title.

>what is the Islamic Golden age

All religions can have it's bad forms and yes some are better then others and all religions get some parts wrong, but most advanced religions are useful and have benefits.

Islamic Golden Age is bullshit propaganda.

They inherited almost all the wealth of knowledge from the Greek and Persian worlds, and they used it, Arabs aren't some nigger tier people like pol would have you believe. Inferior to whites? Yes, but far more advanced then Negros. They used this wealth inherited from the ancients that was lost to the west for hundreds of years, their religion wasn't holding them back, their race was. Had whites embraced Islam by the time they inherited the this knowledge of the old world it would not of held them back at all.

They didn't inherit wealth or knowledge. They destroyed wealth and knowledge, then a hundred years later some assholes learned how to read and translated some texts into Arabic.
If that's a Golden Age and the best Muslims can do then we should wipe them out entirely.

Dude you don't understand natsocs made OPs meme not leftists lol. People even further to the right then you are.

It was made by people who don't hate civic nationalists enough to insult them, but like people like Cenk enough to give civic nationalists shit for not liking Cenk.
Anyone who thinks the ''meme'' was made by a right winger is out of their fucking mind.

Fantastic

>christopher hitchens
>redpilled

>Sink Yogurt

Fucking hell your a bias retard, you just straight up denying historical fact cause MUH ISLAM. They had the largest library in the world at one time until it was destroyed by the Mongols.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom

Even Christians and Jews were allowed to study there. So much for you mad bigots who just destroy everything.

It's debunked bullshit propaganda. Kill yourself, Muslim.

So this is like that AfD voter caricature in Woche or whatever this German toiletpaper was called?

Of course you can't be afraid of discussing inconvenient ideas because if you do, you're going to lose to them. This is visible nowadays with the media going all out with "how can people vote for " bullshit. The reason is - they were on the margin, ignored as a wrongthink for at least last 50 years. This position meant that there was no taboo there and they could figure out criticism of the current world order without any barriers and present new solutions.

Meanwhile the left, both mainstream and radical uses the same old tired shit they've used in the 60's or even earlier. Ever noticed that idea among them that they somehow represent the working class? In majority of the western world working class hates them and votes against at every step, so why do they think they represent them?

Discussion is not allowed on the left so they still believe in bullshit they peddled 100 years ago.

It's not debunked at all, that's why you have zero evidence for it, and no Steven Crowder videos don't count as debunking. I'm not a Muslim either ican just see the problem isn't religion it's race.

ISIS differs from other terrorist organisation's agenda only by proclaiming that their leader is caliph and from organisations like Muslim Brotherhood by both proclaiming their leader as caliph and different strategy. In the theological/legal sphere they're virtually identical. Read a fucking book.

The problem is race, but it doesn't help your case to flat out lie about a non-existent Muslim golden age.
Muslims are arabs, and those arabs never had a golden age. That supports the idea that race is a problem. Only a complete idiot tries to push a debunked idea uplifting arabs to make a point about how ''race is a problem.''
If race is a problem actually try looking into the golden age and see what arguments people have made against it. It's 100% bullshit. More fake than the holocaust.

But you can provide zero proof it is fake other then saying "it's been debunked" while i have already proved it. My point about it being a race problem is that if the Christian world had instead been Islamic it would not of held them back at all. It's obvious that you are hung about Islam or you would admit it isn't the problem. Arabs are easily capable of maintaining are reasonably advanced civilizations, of course it cannot not compare to Western just as the Islamic Goldern Age cannot compare to the Renaissance, but it happened none the less no matter how much you deny it. And they wouldn't of magically become noble people if they were Christian and the West would no of fallen into chaotic bigotry if they were Islamic.

Who /reactionary/ here?
Who /hightory/ here?
Who /medievalist/ here?

You didn't prove shit. You posted a fucking Wikipedia article.
I know that you have either never looked into the subject or you're lying. You know which it is, so either look into it or stop lying.

shut up

>Not how a starter pack works...

Faggot

I would be a reactionary but it's the stupidest fucking term ever. Literally all movements are reactions to something else.

I prefer Free-Thinker.

Are you fucking new here or something? I posted what you call a source, Wikipedia is one of the most reliable sources available. The only people why deny the Islamic Golden Age are Christian fanatics who deny any other Golden age of every other Religion or atheists who have to constantly discredit religion. The source was proof of the House of Wisdom, the largest, most extensive collection of documents and books in history at that time, people from all over Europe and Asia went their to study and the Muslims allowed it. What is so hard for you to understand that Islam preserved much of the text of the ancients, even after most of it was lost after the idiotic mongols destroyed it. It still preserved much of the Greeks and Persians science and philosophy, that was a major base for the Renaissance.

There is very important difference you miss.

Islamic theology and legal system is impossible to reform, Christian ones are. As such it was possible for let's say Catholics to allow national languages instead of latin as a language of liturgy, but in Islamic world classical arabic, language with no practical use at all is still taught to every man.

Every other "anti-progress"(technical and civilizational as opposed to social) idea in islam is also impossible to reform, therefore making sure that islam will forever hinder the ability of arabs to build functional civilizations that successfully mimic the western one. How does it work though? Why can't Islam change?

Here's the short story:

There are 3 legal sources in islamic law and theology. Quaran - which contents and meaning could've been only changed by the prophet(via rule of abrogation), Hadiths - which are nowadays categorized into several groups depending on their legal status(strong, weak, irrelevant and false) and also can't be changed by anybody but prophet living his life differently, Ijma - scholarly consensus - which is based off two previous ones and as those don't change, once scholars reach consensus on some aspect - it can't change either, nor can scholars reach consensus that is in conflict with the previous one. Not adhering to any of those is equal to apostasy.

Things like death penalty for apostasy or attack of one non-islamic country on islamic one giving muslims warrant to commit terrorist attacks in the attacking country(as part of "defensive jihad") or that truce with non-islamic world can only be temporary while peace is impossible etc. etc. are parts of Ijmas that typically range from 9th century AD(truce, death for apostasy) to 1960's(defensive jihad thing).

Always remember that you can't coexist with muslims.

>reliable

LMAO I drove by this thread just to laugh at you. Imagine being so dead wrong you invalidate the rest of your post.

I'm for whichever ideology and political party that gives us fewer nigs and Jews.

Considering their is a thousand different sects of Islam i would consider that statement void. Not to mention i already said earlier some Religions are better then others, but if Europeans had instead of taken Christianity and taken on Islam it would of been the same outcome.

Sorry but Breitbart isn't a reliable source redditfag. Give me a more generally reliable source then Wikipedia.

Except that Samsung does make cars...

>Considering their is a thousand different sects of Islam
4 biggest schools of Sunni law agree with each other in 75% and they encompass around 90% of sunni population. On things like how to interpret Quaran etc. practically every sect agrees with each other.

The Islam has thousands different sects is literally irrelevant and a product of misguided rhetoric that started from "there are many interpretations of Quaran!" which is awfully wrong(if you see conflicting statements in Quaran, check which one is chronologically newer, that's the correct one, the previous one was correct between the time it was said by muhammad and the time he said the conflicting statement - to make it little harder the book isn't ordered chronologically for some fucked up reason).

These are not classical liberals.
They are cultural supremacists.

A classical liberal could give a fuck what you believe as long as the law treats people equally.

These are people who assert white male dominance, rigid hierarchical systems and tradition. They ridicule and marginalize people who think differently than them, because the other people are calling out their supremacy, which uses language and signifiers to frame things so that they always come out winners.

Notice what they all have in common: white. male. butthurt.

So they reformed their system by creating a new sect yes?

>this 'classical liberalism' shit is a sideline ideology, it has no genuine force, it has no genuine ideas, it is just smug condescension of 'Wow, look at these idiots on the left in their identity politics, they're crazy!

Classical liberalism has fuck nothing to do with this -- and it has nothing to do with the alt-right or the alt-right, either.

Scratch "this is why Trump won" also. Sounds stupid, immature as hell and like you're excusing yourself for doing something bad just to spite other people.

Yeah the ebil huwyte mayles, the only net contributors to US budget, how the world
No. It doesn't work like this. If they agree on fundamental theological or legal doctrines and all of them do, they typically reach the same conclusions. Muslim sects are based off things like assuming that Ali was the right man to inherited Muhammad's legacy or rallying about some guy proclaiming himself to be Mahdi, or accepting a guy proclaiming himself a caliph while the remaining let's say 99,5% of the population(most importantly - 99,5% of imams) isn't really convinced about it. As islamic law and theology are the very same thing, lots of those 25% of differences are also metaphysical rather than legal issues.

>Yeah the ebil huwyte mayles, the only net contributors to US budget, how the world
how the world would be better without them*

Was this made by a leftist to attempt to invalidate or invalidate classical liberalism? Cuz this shits pretty alright if you ask me.

>No. It doesn't work like this.
STAHPPP THATS NOT HOW MY WORLDVIEW WORKS kek

>If they agree on fundamental theological or legal doctrines and all of them do, they typically reach the same conclusions.
Hasn't this been the same for all the majority of nations in history? And only nations such as the current West which is on the verge of collapsing have such drastic differing opinions?


>Muslim sects are based off things like assuming that Ali was the right man to inherited Muhammad's legacy or rallying about some guy proclaiming himself to be Mahdi
Yeah your basically describing the religious version of politics

>STAHPPP THATS NOT HOW MY WORLDVIEW WORKS kek
>FUCK YOU AND YOUR MANSPLAINING, TOO COMPLICATED
See? You're not the only one that can do it. But I don't think it makes for a constructive discussion.
>Hasn't this been the same for all the majority of nations in history? And only nations such as the current West which is on the verge of collapsing have such drastic differing opinions?
Yes, except it's not a discussion about why the West is in the state it is but why muslims can't into building civilization.
>Yeah your basically describing the religious version of politics
Which is how muslim sects are formed more often than not.

Reactionary has a very specific meaning--someome who wants to return to a status quo.

>irregardless

I just couldn't help it the way you said it was too perfect not too.

>Yes, except it's not a discussion about why the West is in the state it is but why muslims can't into building civilization.
Because they are Arabs, Islam imperfect it may be is secondary and in fact is perfectly tailored for Arabs.

>Which is how muslim sects are formed more often than not.
Which is how most ideologies are formed.