Alt right are his friends against the SJWs, then we learn Kraut gave him some info...

Alt right are his friends against the SJWs, then we learn Kraut gave him some info, then a "debate" where Richard Spencer told him he is not that smart, lies about going to bed and gets upset at friends criticisms, declares he will lead the Liberalist party despite being an individual, gets called out by Jim and Carl tells him he has some info. Is 2018 looking good for our boy Sargon of Asadd Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=XClE1pmKabo
plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-group/#IdeGroRig
youtube.com/watch?v=_VoRG8K9iz0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The Alt Right and Sargon have been shitting on each other since 2015. What the fuck are you talking about?

Explain his friendship with Milo and the times he defended them agains the SJWs.

Jim calls him out and then runs away like a little bitch. Do you heard that weird noise in the distance my canadian friend? That is Jim packing his bags again, thinking how to still be cool and not lose his altright beta bucks.

Things aren't looking so good for Soygoy of Mossad

This e-celeb shit should result in an immediate ban

Dude...this is amazing

youtube.com/watch?v=XClE1pmKabo

People are so confuse about what group rights are.

>Group rights should not be confused with rights that people possess in virtue of being members of groups. People normally possess rights as members of universities or sports clubs or businesses or trade unions or churches or states but, in the ordinary run of cases, these are individual rights. For example, the right of a member of a university to use its library, or the right of a citizen to vote in elections, is the right of an individual person. An infringement of that right would infringe the right of the individual right-holder, rather than a group right of the relevant university or state. In fact, most rights held by individuals are associated with group identities or group memberships of some sort. If we are willing to extend rights to non-human animals, even human rights will be rights unique to a particular group; yet most human rights are conceived as individual rights and, on some views, can only be individual rights.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-group/#IdeGroRig

this. +1. thumbs up. like. heart.

Can we do the Sargon reading of Mein Kampf yet?

this
it's called having principles?, and not playing group politics. what milo got to do with this? just another character assassination victim.

Sargon argued against Kraut over that stupid toilet server Kraut set up, like the Hillary twatsucker that Kraut is. So, Sargon > Kraut. As low a bar as that is.

As for that bitch move after losing a debate to Spencer, of all people, yeah, Sargon's got to own that one.

Rip

Why does /pol keep posting the same picture of Wil Wheaton?

Hes very famous. Why would you not use this majestic pic of his mug?

Wait wait wait he got upset at Vee for criticizing him?

He'd have to record himself reading it first. I'm sure someone would exploit the fuck out of it as soon as it happened.

Fuck ur alt right Fuck your left your top n bottom I am not your slave you Fcker! I don’t care about your shitty e celebs your maga your shit honestly just fck your cancer I can’t put into words how much hatred I have for you and other idiots like you.

>yfw the soy father is unironically directing his goons to shill on Sup Forums now

And fck you too!

Only person I do not hate here.

>sargon is friends with an alt-lite jew fag
What the fuck does that have to do with the alt-right?

The Alt Hype and JF have already made video responses to Sargon's Liberalist™ principles.

Sargon has really fucked up with this Liberalist™ nonsense. He may end up like Kraut if he is not careful. But 2018 isn't looking good for Sargoy of Mossad.

Never forget that trademark buddy

i'm watching jf's stream now, 55 mins in, but so far i'm in agreement with jf. that being said, this is a concept in it's infancy and if sargon is willing to take this criticism and improve his ideology based upon this criticism it could be a very good thing for sargon. i agree with sargon that the individual should be the main focus of rights and liberties, however, for him to entirely ignore the need for group rights is a major mistake and needs to be revised or this political idea will never get off the ground.

original

He might be smart but he certainly isn't well read.

Fuck jfs the alt hype wrecks his shit in, someone post the link

Absolutely BTFO by Ryan Faulk
youtube.com/watch?v=_VoRG8K9iz0

Firstly:drama thread. See name field.
>we learn Kraut gave him some info
The extent of the info Kraut gave Benjamin was "hey we're looking through publicly available info. Maybe not the most obviously available info, but public available info nonetheless". Benjamin then responded to Kraut to the effect of "Hey man maybe stop this shit, this looks a bit skeezy." Could Benjamin have asked more questions to Kraut? Sure. Could more red flags have been raised for Benjamin? Sure. Could Benjamin have asked for more corroboration of Kraut's story from other people in the Discord? Sure. But in hindsight it doesn't seem Benjamin knew much- even The Guardian corroborated this.

> then a "debate" where Richard Spencer
I have some comments on this:
ebate at a high level requires at least these four things, which Benjamin lacks:
>1
A wealth of knowledge, not only of your positions, but your opponents', and of any ideas that may come up. Benjamin has perhaps the knowledge of a 4-year public college PoliSci graduate.
>2
A genuine curiosity for more knowledge, no matter what the current knowledge level is. One should seek the truth wherever it may lead. This is why Spencer slowly but surely evolved from a Right-Libertarian, to what he is now, and Benjamin calcified as a Centre-Left-Liberal. Spencer also has genuine humility, whereas Benjamin has an air of superiority, assuming his beliefs are alpha and omega.
>3
Intellectual spontaneity, to respond coherently in the face of new information or a curveball question.Benjamin doubles down on trite talking points, whereas Spencer gives a novel and comprehensive response.
>4
Very good grasp of the Trivium (grammar/input, logic/process, and rhetoric/output). A Logician, Mathemetician, or even a decent programmer, even if one is deficient at the other four criteria, can still generally be able to break down, analyze, and construct falsifiable and consistent statements better than a layman. Benjamin seems to have the grammar right, is working on the rhetoric, and fails at the logic. Spencer has an Oxford-grasp of all three. Spencer needs better opponents. Pic related.

>declares he will lead the Liberalist party despite being an individual
This is probably the worst- and thus best- thing Benjamin ever did. It's like an addict hitting rock bottom. He has two routes to go here:
>1
To iron out all inconsistencies with a "group of Individualists", he would have to go not only full Libertarian, but full Egoist.
>2
If he does not want to do what is required to iron out said inconsistencies, he can very simply abandon the idea and admit himself as a Collectivist. If he's already admitting to being Collectivist, he may as well go all the way and join the Alt-Right. This will be an enlightening year for him.

currently watching hb and aydin go over the sargon v. spencer thing (not a debate), will watch as soon as finished, no need for a link

Or he can choose to defend his inconsistencies, defend his label, and be overrun by everyone who points out all the hypocrisy. This is honestly my hope because it demonstrates to the audience the fragility of liberalism as a foundation.

Milo is a jewish faggot and had to go. Sargon is a quadroon nigger

So what is the tl:dr summation of Sargoy vs Spencer?

I'm not listening to 4 hours of that chuckle fuck giggling to himself.

jf is still a lolbertarian due to getting cucked by the state.

>subs already going back up and a net gain over the 14 day period.
>Thousands of free views.

Thanks goyim.

>Sargoy of Faggad

25+25=50
sargon will wipe the floor with you "alprike " retreads

Why are people so retarded when it comes to classical liberal style politics.

>libertarian - lol who will build the roads?
>Err that's anarchist, there's still a small government.
>Eheheheheeheh ROADS!!!!!1!111!

>Group of individuals haha.
>Ere we are talking about rights here not actual individuals.
>COLLECTIVE INDIVIDUALS ROFLMAO1!1!

No wonder politics is shit these days.

He knows the Alt Right is correct in their views but he has an emotional attachment to the Enlightenment. He can't make the jump, can't take the final red pill.

Sargon is just afraid.

so in your individualist society, how do you monitor immigration? you can only deny an individual immigration to a country based on the fact that the country is collectively owned. if you have a nation of pure individuals then no one can be denied entry to a country because no one individual can have ownership of the countries land as a whole.

I will smile wide as hell, if social media dies, and all of these cock roaches lose their gravy trains.

Does the person have the following?

>Greater than 120 IQ
>Educated to a minimum standard of A levels, ideally degree but university is a joke these days.
>Trained in a job we need.
>Speaks near perfect English.
>Free of diseases.

If so then welcome aboard! Otherwise fuck off.

We aren't fucking Rand here. Doesn't need to be 100% individualism.

Because he's a fucking cuck who can't think for himself and if he lost his "friends" he'd be lonely. Reminder to sage all Sargon threads. I post this image hesitantly knowing it will bump this turd of a thread.

listening to JF btfo liberalists as right now

so you are by default defining a collective otherwise known as a nation, thereby nullifying your idea of individualist

and thus by defining a collective known as a nation which by your individualist ethos cannot have rights, therefore there can not, by your own rules, be anything like immigration controls because a collective cannot have rights

So you are fine with becoming a minority in your own country bong? Or are you an immigrant yourself?

I more or less agree with your analysis, here's what I gathered from the debate:
>Sargon is a skilled arguer
>but lacks logical thinking skills
>has always used his arguing skills to protect his flawed logic
>hence his perceived superiority - not because he is right, not because he's on the path of truth, not because he has the greater logic - but because he is able to manipulate the argument so that he cuts his losses and maximizes his wins (and comes away thinking he's the victor)

I don't think he'll ever progress on his "path to enlightenment" unless he recognizes and rectifies this little paradox.

Sargun got destroyed. There is no way around it. Go back and listen to Richard Spencer, he golden gunned Sargun. Sargun is finished.

So he's actually Jewish. not black. Hmm...

Seriously, I really did question that after listening to his pilpul.

I think he's starting to loose his mind, he'll end up like kraut.

Carl The Cuck is a fucking Liberal, as in the literal sense of the word. He is not our boy and never has been. He will never recite the 14 words. Get it through your skulls.

Individualist believe in universal rights. It's not a collectivist group if everyone is treated the same.

Alt right want preferential treatment for whites. SJWs want preferential treatment for non whites. These are not the whole set of people in a nation.

That's what makes them collectivist.

>Implying that by letting only highly skilled individuals in we will become a minority.

I have no idea why alt right has a problem with this plan. By reverting to a meritocratic society, blacks etc won't be able to compete. You get your end goal but with legit reasoning instead of

>Lol not white enough!

i'm not talking about race. you're the one bringing race into this. "liberalists" talk solely in terms of collectives vs individuals. a nation cannot exist without a collective.

stop trying to change the subject.

>Individualist believe in universal rights
if you believe in individual rights then you believe in the individual right to free movement. free movement between borders. if you impose immigration controls you impose restrictions on free movement thus violating an individuals rights.

If you want to define a nation as a collective then whatever. It's pretty unnecessary.

Individualist principles mean that every law and rule applies to everyone equally. You can judge someone entirely without seeing their gender race orientation rye.

The collectivist has prefered groups that have special rights (good luck with the ethnostate without these).

How retarded do you people have to be to not get this.

and if you do not imbue rights to an indidual who does not exist within a border you implicitly define a group of people existing within a border thus creating a collective

This there some kind of way we can fuck with him by taking out "Liberalist" as a copyright or something? Even in the UK? So when they go and start a group they'll get fucked over?

Of course, it's worth nothing that these concepts of universal rights and individualism nearly all originated in countries that were over 90% white.

Prior to the mass-immigration that began in the 1960s, almost every white country other than some colonial ones were almost completely white. So it's a case of wanting whites to live with other races in their nation and get preferential treatment over them, it's about wanting whites to have their own nations and to be able to close the borders.

see
if you impose immigration controls you prefer one group of people existing within borders over another group of people existing outside of those borders

Those other people don't pay taxes to our system. Therefore they are not part of it. Our laws do not apply to them.

We let them in as a benefit to us, not by their rights. They have no stated right to move here under liberalist principles.

I don't know why alt rights are saying 'LOL COUNTRIES ARE COLLECTIVES' like it's some kind of killer argument. Everyone in the nation is under exactly the same laws and rights.

>They have no stated right to move here under liberalist principles.
you are imposing restrictions on the free movement of individuals. you cannot have universal rights if they do not apply UNIVERSALLY

Milo isn't part of the alternative right and never has been, media attempts to link the two notwithstanding

I guess we'll find out over the next few months/weeks. It will be interesting to see what sort of public alliances or words of support Sargon's new "liberalistism" branding will get. Lots of different groups are afraid of the Altright and of course they're stronger working together than against each other. Might make for some strange bedfellows.

*it's not a case of

Sorry, was meant for (you).

You are just going to keep repeating the same shit over and over so I don't see the point in arguing.

Assuming that a country is a collective for moving the argument on sake what is the problem here?

Everyone who votes and pays taxes gets treated equally across the board in that system. That's individualism.

great, you concede that you cannot define a nation and immigration controls without violating an individuals right to free movement.

it's been fun

On individual only has our rights if they are in the nation. I don't have the right to vote in Canada where I don't pay taxes.

It's universal to the system of laws. There thankfully is very little globalist laws.

To be honest I'm also fine with open borders if we get rid of welfare but that's a different topic.

That thing in the pic is a ftm tranny

apparently you're not understanding that for a nation to have immigration control, you must state that some people get to live within borders and others dont. thus you are implicitly defining a collective of people (who live within borders) to have rights over another collective of people (who live outside of the borders). this violates the first rule of liberalist club, collectives of people do not have rights.