The Sargon Fallacy

>identity politics are all wrong
>anyone picking a side is an SJW
>horseshoe theory, if you have strong opinions you're wrong
>the alt-right are SJWs for siding with whites
>whites SHOULD be picking purely individualistic, universalist, abstract principles to govern their political framework
Meanwhile, all non-whites are working as nepotistic highly loyal in-groups to advance their collective ethnic interests, while whites are scolded and feared for even suggesting that they might have collective interests, even by default, as the target of so many other (predatory) ethnic groups. So, my real question is this:
>Sargon, when will the Saxon begin to hate?
youtu.be/aR4MvD9IEAE

>Sargon

>implying all non-whites are one person

CLASSIC Nu/pol/

>1 post by this ID

> 1 post by this idiot making nonsequitor inferences

>sargon

is this in reference to the sarcastic fat guy with the youtube channel?

(((MAYBE)))

Not an argument.

>bantz isn't an argument
no shit, Sherlock

>Argentina
>White

Srsly though I like Sargon but his ambivalence towards the survival of his race makes me sick tbqh familia.

Not an argument.

...

>US
>White

One dollar

Not an argument.

>the alt-right are SJWs for siding with whites

This is true though.

>SJWs = Kike-pozed leftism
>SJWs = 1488ers
Shouldn't we have to pick one?

...

Not an argument

>2UWWPBfS
Get filtered newfag.

>he wants a safespace on his thread
>just because he cant come up with any arguments

Still not seeing any arguments!

>The CuckOLD of Akkad
>The Anita Sarkesian of anti-feminism
The double chin anti-feminist guy is not funny or smart when debating 15 yr old feminists and being an anti-white cuck.

Yep, he literally picks fight with babies and even takes 30min to do so. He doesn't try to actually say or do something useful, but rather panders to some edgy fags that think fighting kids will make this world a better place, because then everybody understands "we are all equal and should love each other." Also: His wife brought children into the marriage, he is a cuck.

>quadroon likes philosophy that atomizes people
shocker

He doesn't have any of his own kids?
Doesn't having your own kids erase the cuckoldry? Besides, I have a feeling he's a welfare queen. I don't imagine he actually works or supports his wife.

He's not totally dishonest, people like Quadroon of Islamabad are classical liberals who honestly and genuinely believe, in their heart of hearts, that there's going to come some indeterminate point in the future when all of these Blacks, Middle Easterners, Chinese et al will disband all of their ethnic professional associations, pressure groups, congressional and parliamentary caucuses, activist groups etc in the interest of the greater good of a "raceless world" and the primacy of the individual.

He genuinely believes this deep down.

I attribute this belief to a tendency I've noticed among white people to want to believe the best about everyone. I've seen white friends reflect on say, a non-white service worker doing something nice for them by saying "[x ethnic group] are cool, aren't they?" It's this heartfelt belief that we're all fundamentally the same and that one's own good will is reflected just as much in the racial aliens one meets.

The problem is that the world doesn't work like this. Those race-orientated professional associations, political groups, unions etc weren't form out of genuine good will, they were formed to carve out a piece of a particular country, in a metaphorical sense, for themselves and their tribe, and that however nice that Indian shopkeeper was to you, deep down his loyalty to his own blood if push comes to shove, not to some abstract notion of propositional identity.

>all races will abandon discrete racial interests for the greater good of a "raceless world" and the primacy of the individual.
>He genuinely believes this deep down.
Did he swallow the Marxist "historical inevitability" pill?

What you're describing is the kikeification of culture. Kikes spread cosmopolitanism and this brand of faceless liberalism because it cultivates and atmosphere that they can hide in as "whites" while also retaining their Jewish outgroup identity.

I don't think he even consciously understands what he believes in as "ideology", so in a way, yes.

I think what Sargon ultimately does is what a lot of white people do - project their own universalist assumptions onto non-whites, without realizing that as nice as that non-white person can be, he'd have a knife at your throat tomorrow if it was a matter of his group versus your group.

Not an argument.

>sargon_of_cukkad.png
>not sargon_of_mossad.png

Are there any remnants of fascism left in your country or have (((they))) shamed the nationalists into hiding?

>what Sargon ultimately does is what a lot of white people do - project their own universalist assumptions onto non-whites, without realizing that as nice as that non-white person can be, he'd have a knife at your throat tomorrow
Is there no way to get through to such people, except to wait for them to get enriched?

I doubt he'd be able to get benefits because of his Patreon

Whites have historically been a lot more universalist than non-whites. The problem is that it has reached a level of near-suicidal xenophilia and hatred from one's own place. In the past there was always a sense of tribalism that was deep rooted and reacted to perceived existential threats, even if we, as whites, have this tendency to be less ethnocentric overall.

But you can see traces of it throughout western history: Herodotus began his histories with an account of a "great deeds of the barbarians". I can't really imagine a Chinese, Indian or Arab Historian ever lauding an outgroup in the opening chapter of a universal history. Can you?

It's also interesting how non-whites have historically interacted with this more open attitude. Have you ever noticed that non-whites simply believe white liberal claims of purporting to believe in "racelessness" are pure bullshit and some sort of elaborate, highly complex plot to lull them all into a false sense of security?

That's psychological projection on their part too. Non-Whites simply cannot imagine ever treating someone from an outgroup with the same degree of kindness as someone from their in-group, so their automatic assumption is that whites are trying to pull the wool over their eyes while maintaining their own ethnocentrism on a level so subtle that they (the non-whites) won't be able to consciously recognize it.

There are many remnants of fascism in my society. We own a great deal of land, and work actively behind the scenes, internationally. We're waiting. Soon.

Alt-right=pro-degenerate liberal capitalists that are anti-Islam because it is against women, gays, and atheists.

SJWs=pro-degenerate liberal socialists that are anti-Christian because it is against women, gays, and atheists.

The alt-right is against tradition therefore it is not right wing at all, the only thing separating them from lefties is they are more racist and want less regulation on the market.

>Herodotus began his histories with an account of a "great deeds of the barbarians"
good point, there has always been a Western European xenophilia trend. It probably the same psychological proclivity that makes us climb mountains, cross oceans, and walk on the moon.
>Have you ever noticed that non-whites simply believe white liberal claims of purporting to believe in "racelessness" are pure bullshit and some sort of elaborate, highly complex plot to lull them all into a false sense of security?
I often feel that this is a superior trait found in non-whites; it's the achilles heel of western europids. It will be what kills them in the end.

>It's also interesting how non-whites have historically interacted with this more open attitude. Have you ever noticed that non-whites simply believe white liberal claims of purporting to believe in "racelessness" are pure bullshit and some sort of elaborate, highly complex plot to lull them all into a false sense of security?

We need our own theory. You can't convince them with logic or empirical evidence because they fundamentally believe non-whites are heading towards racial universalism too - The only way they'll come round to our side is with emotion. People make decisions emotionally and then ex-post facto rationalize them.

The thing is, the internal contradictions of liberalism in of itself are highly combustible. We need our own theory because it makes that defection from liberalism to the right "stickier" in the long run if the person has an alternative narrative of history and human nature to the one presented dominated by a liberal narrative.

By shitposting on Sup Forums, you're playing a small part in crafting this alternative narrative understanding of history, the world, human groups, group interaction etc. I always had an aversion to liberalism as a teenager, and frequently strayed from it, but I found nothing on the right as emotionally fulfilling in terms of being a comprehensive world-view. It was only until I discovered things like race realism, traditionalism etc that I abandoned Chomsky & Co for good.

The truth hurts.

...

>The double chin anti-feminist guy is not funny or smart when debating 15 yr old feminists and being an anti-white cuck.
his live stream debates with feminists is terrible; he just stutters polite spaghetti and gets BTFO. It's just sad

>I often feel that this is a superior trait found in non-whites; it's the achilles heel of western europids. It will be what kills them in the end.

At the moment it's self-destructive. But it's also what makes living around our own people, when we're in our own homogeneous communities, so pleasant and enjoyable.

Even Asians don't generally create as high-trust societies as those that were once formerly dominated wholly by whites (and some which still largely are). Certainly not Chinese, who have lived in a state that is essentially a giant Malthusian trap for thousands of years, encouraging the most cut-throat of competition for the most miniscule of resources. Non-White societies are fundamentally unpleasant places to me, perhaps that's just my own ethnic preference talking but I don't think non-whites really understand the concept of joie de vivre, and if they do it's about purely material things like sex, gambling, ostentatious and bizarre banquets with monkey brains etc.

Obviously the above is a very emotional preference, but I think on some level even non-whites acknowledge it. Ibn Jubayr pointed it out a thousand years ago: Shariah, quite apart from its more cruel and stupid elements, simply didn't work that well as a legal code guaranteeing mutual obligations and trust. Which is why he said so many Muslims lived to Jerusalem and Acre to be under Crusader rule.

One of our general goals should be to drag the conversation rightward so that everyone else has to at least meet us halfway. We can incrementally uncuck these people against their will by forcing them to interact with our ideas. Because we use facts as the basis for redpills, they will have to make certain concessions in order to seem reasonable. That should give us enough leverage to make the next push rightward.

So who is he supposed to be appealing to, /r9k/ mgtows or something?

stop posting about this attention whore cuck, you are only helping him.

>you are only helping him
nah, i think by dismantling him regularly it prevents newfags and impressionable minds from wasting their time thinking he's worth listening to. I think you're censoring negative press, what do you have to say for yourself?

One of the things the left does really well is equip its foot soldiers with effective counter-arguments.

You can see it all the time any time anyone other than genuinely skilled rhetors like, say, Stefan Molyneux engages with them from a classical liberal or conservative position about matters like race and sex.

The conservative will say something like "Yeah, but it has been X years since Jim Crow/slavery/the civil war, blacks have all of the guaranteed institutional rights that whites do", and the liberal will come back with a canned response about the legacy of slavery, the root of black inability to create wealth, the trauma and psychic damage that was inflicted by the KKK etc, all backed up by a legion of social "scientist" sources.

The classical lib/conservative never has a compelling response to these canned responses. Liberals have actually really effectively and efficiently pattern-recognized traditional conservative/classical lib arguments against things like Affirmative Action and generated highly verbose and complex arguments against these designed to baffle their opponents, and they nearly always do.

>generated highly verbose and complex arguments against these designed to baffle their opponents
this is also their weakness.
From an OODA cycles perspective, our memes are purer, simpler, and pithy. They can't convert their sophistry into memes with the same efficiency we can. They might have AIDS as their weapon, but we have prion diseases like Mad Cow.

And by "forcing" I don't mean act like SJW protesters who get in people's faces. I mean speaking openly and confidently in debate while appearing to be the reasonable one.

The optics of discussion and debate are important. That's why SJWs were a gift to us from heaven.

That's absolutely right, and it accounts for at least some of our success in the meme war. But there's a tendency among the left to associate simple explanations to social problems with people of low-intelligence, and to instead almost _want_ to view social problems as the result of highly complex, multi-factor environments because of this. It's a sort of intelligence-signalling thing.

I'm sure you've heard the standard liberal response to a lot of very basic, simple and objectively true statements, (e.g. "blacks perform more poorly because they're less intelligent") with a "but humans are complex creatures!"

Well yes, even worms are complex creatures in their own way, but that doesn't mean Mendelian Inheritance doesn't apply to them, or us.