*laughs condescendingly*

*laughs condescendingly*

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FRyVl4EOl2w
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I'm a proud liberalistTM

Probably the 2nd worse thing about him is the forced laugh-as-an-argument, only superceded by his Marxism. However, the slow unwinding of his internal contractions have been leading him to an ever more Alt Right/Libertarian awakening, so there may be hope for him.

In the meantime he is only real good at being anti-feminims (anti-Marxist) and anti-illegal immigration (also anti-Marxist subversive strategy to stuff the ballot box with low IQ, tribal, anti-white parasites)

Have any of you even read Mein Kampf?

youtube.com/watch?v=FRyVl4EOl2w

>watching cucktube

Yes
It said that the lies of the rabbis can only be stopped by force
Also syphilis is bad mmkay

HAVE YOU EVEN READ LOCKE RICHARD

>You don't understand

...

Sargon is finished.

And he's yet to answer if Lawrence Fishburne is huwhite.

>The RS stream
>The Anglin stream
>"I'm tired, I need my circlejerk with Vee for 3 hours before bed though"
>I'm bored of debating the alt right, they can't even tell me whether they'd use imperial or metric measuring system while baking white nationalist cupcakes

does he have ANY credibility?

...

Lol Sargon is so cucked... he still makes $8000 a month playing dinosaur games and doing a stupid video laughing about SJWs once in a while

>Tyranny comes from collectivism
>Only individualism can prevent tyranny
This level of mental gymnastics is insane.

...

???

>thinking money is more important to someone like Sargon than credibility

is he even 35 yet? guy is barely middle-aged and he has another 30 years to live a life out of youtubing.

...

Tyranny is inherently individualistic in nature. Have you ever read Plato? He explains there pretty well that tyrants, whether they be the masses or a single individual, are self-driven hedonists who seek comfort, sensations and power. Only collective morality and national/ethnic objectives can encourage either the masses or the top class of a society to dethrone the tyrant(s).

Its individualism that creates tyrants out of collectivists

>laughs sargonically
ftfy

>an individual can defeat collectivist tyranny

this is why it's stupid

sure, if literally everyone was an individualist by nature this makes a bit of sense. But human nature is collectivism and that's simply a biological fact and sargon will never change that.

>Sargon perfectly enunciating the boomers' mentality
And he wonders why everything is going wrong in this world.

That is what was I tying to say.
Tyrants become problems when out of group of relatively equal people, one guy stands up because he thinks he is smarter than all others.

You need an enlightened populace to live that way, which is why better people than us were the only ones who did it successfully. Society also needs to be homogenous. But don't tell Sargon, he thinks he's going to enlighten the kebab.

But that's the beauty of it mate. They want to make everyone an individualist that doesn't bother anyone else and believe this fertile ground for civilization. It's a poor attempt at NAPpery and democratic atomization, where nobody and no idea has any power and we can all finally get to work on our economy and hedonism. Liberalism will balance the forces of everyone and the middle road will bring peace and such. Btw of course immigration needs to be regulated so that it stays positive but this is no problem for our advanced social science wizardry. Did you see those charts I compiled? Can you believe last year's GDP?

Checked
Unchecked economical liberalism is the death of civilization.
Charterism is the only way to make capitalism advance. Prove me wrong.
>Hint: You can't

He's got his porn and video games and an ego the size of a planet. He plays Locke audiobooks while he feeds his wife's dinosaur which totally counts as intellectual behavior. He's an Enlightened Man, can't you tell?

The term capitalism itself is a Marxist invention. What's a medieval kingdom without usury? Charterism is local popular revolt against specific conditions, an indictment against the bongs at the time. You think going back to popular movements from the 19th will save us?

Not just enlightened. You need the right genes distributed across the populace with very little variation to prevent uncertainty.
A relative degree of certainty means you can allow people to act in their natural manner without a totalitarian system to enforce conformity. A genetic mess is incredibly chaotic requiring the type of gov. That these individualist hate most.

I meant ''Charterism'' as in restoring the old strict charter system our economy used before their liberalization. The government basically made you a deadline to do profits and do what it wants you to do, and then disbanded the company to make another one with another objective, all in the business spirit of things, of course.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Y'all are just buttmad that he makes 100x more money than you do and is 10000x more popular than you shut-ins will ever be

I don't have any complaints about my economic situation or my job, tho.

>*raises my wifes black dinosaur*

I hate Sargon just because he's a basic bitch libdem when he argues with SJWs, but then when he argues with white nationalists he turns into a "Ayn Rand didn't go far enough" tier an-cap.

if you can only beat your opponents by arguing things you don't actually believe, YOU'RE STILL WRONG

loki
rare carlos matos sargon pink wojak

That makes sense but my broader point was that arguing for or against 'capitalism' is quite the exercise in dialectical materialism. Freedom not being worthy as an end in itself we can agree on, but so we might on material matters comprising everything important. Capitalism as a system is poorly described and never existed in pure form because of the presence of sovereigns, so who is doing the governing and restricting? Besides (secondary) is dependent on military concerns and so are financial systems and trade, so let's let Marx roll in his grave and discuss politics first, economics second.

>(secondary) property

anyone else hate the way sargone ends his sentences? I actually would occasionally watch his stuff, but after him starting shit with the "alt right" i truly find him irritating. When he joins a stream I leave quicker than he does when Peinovich joins a stream

That makes sense but my broader point was that arguing for or against 'capitalism' is quite the exercise in dialectical materialism. Freedom not being worthy as an end in itself we can agree on, but so we might on material matters NOT covering everything important. Capitalism as a system is poorly described and never existed in pure form because of the presence of sovereigns, so who is doing the governing and restricting? Besides (secondary) property is dependent on military concerns and so are financial systems and trade, so let's let Marx roll in his grave and discuss politics first, economics second.

>*works at the local call centre*

From what ive read in here, some of you guys dont like sargon because he doesnt that being white means anything at all; that migration is always ok as long as its done legally and that he is against anarco-capitalism and the alt right.
But, arent this things, on the very least, acceptable? I am subscribed to him and, even though I do think he hasnt been very good in some debates, everything he says seems rational, anti marxist and anti sjw... I dont see whats so bad about him

lefties will never create true art like this

What's bad is that he's fighting an extremist version of marxism while supporting his own brand of liberalism, which he considers empirically proven and rationally inescapable. He's the eternal centrist, stuck somewhere in time between conservatives and radicals, and finding ideological support from the Enlightenment with its democracy and freedom. But think about what it means that he doesn't consider 'white' to mean anything, to the point where trying to talk about it is retarded to him. None of his Enlightenment idols would have thought so, nor would they agree ONE IOTA with the modern status quo he is defending. But sargon is stuck because he has this body of opinions that he considers derived from Reason™ itself, and so he keeps on looking like a fool when he calls everyone else stupid and emotional.

Sarg'n, you're not as smart as you think you are

Thanks Vee

The Enlightenment was a meme built on the erroneous vision of the Natural State of Man according to Rousseau.
We all know that if the Bible isn't right, it's Hobbes that was, nowadays, yet we keep supporting Enlightenment concept. Why?

*tips fedora*

I agree with you man, I see him as a person with utopic views but... I dont know, I just see him as someone who wants to end identitarianism for good. Maybe its not possible but, I dont see it as such a bad thing

Because democracy and liberalism are as mainstream as they could possibly be, and no amount of anti-SJW anti-marxist activism can put even a dent into our predicament.

Well I don't know what you believe this 'identitarianism' exactly is, but could you try to explain why you think it's the prime evil to be eradicated? What if the SJWs are just a surface retardation phenomenon which mostly catches so much attention because of the sheer insanity of it? It would do sargon (and yourself?) some good to meditate real hard on where it grew out of. The centrist answer of "too radical" is such a cop-out considering the west's historical trajectory. Principles are required and sargon does not have any except a bastardized version of the Enlightenment which he only hypocritically applies to the present.

>Associates fedora tipping with being a christian
the absolute state of american education

...

I simply believe that race and religion shouldnt matter and that those that try to promote themselves through it (by claiming opression or supremacy) should get fucked. People should only succeed by contributing to their society. I also believe that its probably impossible nowadays thanks to leftardation and its results.

>race and religion shouldnt matter
I know and everybody would appreciate the blank slate and race being skin deep, so every theory of equality of human works. But what if you're wrong about this? And even if you're not, do you think it's reasonable to expect to be able to eradicate these ideas by education and "liberalism" alone?
>those that try to promote themselves through it (by claiming opression or supremacy) should get fucked.
This is more ideological theorycrafting about what a society should look like, but does not address any of the issues on the ground. What is this society? The global one? How do countries decide who is part of 'them' and who isn't? The problem is that postulating the character of society as "fair and honest" is the easy part of building a theory. What are you going to do with the dishonest ones? How are you going to keep 'corruption' out of institutions? What is this 'contributing' to society and who gets to decide it? Look mate I appreciate supporting sargon in fighting the SJW's non-answer to these questions, but let's not pretend the matter is settled with FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY flags.

That's a great pic

I understand completely, its just that I believe this to be something everyone should be striving for. Sadly, thats not how it is. Hey thanks for the answers man!

Cheers mate. I just hope we might inspire some people who appreciate sargon to look into the possibility that maybe the void they're still feeling is related to the utter inadequateness of sargon's position.