Yall are a bunch of authoritarian NPCs fallen for the same bullshit the left plays...

They are so retarded they give the gov't a free pass to shit on them without any accountability.

Attached: two party illusion.jpg (1024x768, 118K)

For sure. The NSA is a huge issue specifically. I've not heard anyone say anything about it right after Edward Snowden talked about it. Not a single political party held a good stance on it. They simply shrug it off like it doesn't exist.

>Here's my abridged opinion summed up:
>go read my gay shit on my faggot web page thing
no

Then don't. You're good man.

Fagnon, if you think democrats are left in any way, shape or form, you're too stupid to talk politics.

Attached: 074cpek6don11.jpg (960x720, 78K)

They are certainly more left than the right for sure. Yet at the same time, true hardcore lefts are socialists and communists.

They're both right. The only difference is that the republicans use idpol to try to convince people they're not racist, while the dems try to use idpol to prove they're not sexist.

None of them are right. they are both authoritarians that believe in a doctrine of death and destruction for self-wealth.

How is any of that not rightwing?

>while the dems try to use idpol to prove they're not sexist.
Not sure you've been paying attention lately

Have you? Just look at twitter. Dems HATE socialists more than republicans do.

There are hundreds of worse issues but I don't want the thread to die.

>Dems HATE socialists more than republicans do.
That's also incorrect. They shit on that one crazy eyed bitch because she's actually retarded and will blow their cover before they finish ensuring the destruction of the country

>Why not spend some time and actually debate me on this instead of blasting some inane diatribe of memes and moronic sentiment.
Except your post was nothing but showing off how epic of a fencesitter you are

>That's also incorrect.
No. It's not. This is the problem with idiot boomers/zoomers. You think just repeating factually incorrect nonsense over and over again in your little ideological circlejerk echo chambers makes you right. It doesn't. The top dems in the country like Schumer and Pelosi fucking HATE their own constituents and vote for the rich and corporations and war and all that other rightwing fucking bullshit nearly 100% of the time. As soon as they win the House what's the first god damn thing they talk about? "Bipartisanship". What do fucking repukes say when they win anything? They fucking just come out and declare white nationalism. Go fuck yourself you smelly boomer garbage.

Epic cringe

>rich and corporations and war and all that other rightwing fucking bullshit
And opinions discarded

Attached: 1535384247702.jpg (768x1024, 84K)

BS cunt. Anyone that subscribes to post modernist/neo marxist bullshit critical race/gender "theory" and intersectionality is a leftist cunt traitor.
Thats YOU and the democrats, as well as your RINO traitors in the Bush/McCain camp.
If you are anti gun, open borders, pro import Muslims, pro censoriship of the web, believe in a "patriarchy conspiracy" or white supremacist conspiracy theories. Any of that post 1968 intersectional poison tearing the West apart you deserve death and I hope one day someone gives it to you.
Eat a thousand dicks and chew bricks till you choke. You are a worthless dead branch on the tree of liberty that needs pruning.

That this guy said

Friendly reminder 'the fight' is not against Right and Left, it is against Right and Wrong.
Authority is right. Collective agreement is wrong.

Fuck off with your propaganda. You fucks still support intersectionality and post modernism. Your voters show it.
You refuse to share power, free speech,or free the web and universities from your neo marxist silicon valley traitors.

As long as you guys keep up this post 1968 bullshit psuedoscience and gender social constructivist pedo shit you are my enemy and so is anyone of any party that supports you.
I wouldn't even allow my kids to speak with you and don't wish to try to coexist anymore after the unamerican internet purge you guys supported. I want complete separation.

Authority and collectivism are one and the same thing. You have to become collectivist to have an authoritarian government.

hitler wasnt right-wing

>le epic game of throns
back to r*ddit faggot

Okay but if right wing beliefs are against whore culture, using my money to enable others who choose not to work, gays fucking kids etc
Then ill be right wing.

>Fight me on this. I'm not wrong.
You're correct. Now fuck off.

>libertarian
what a s o y e d meme. read the social contract and become a productive member of society. I also recommend Marcus Aurelius's meditations social action is the path c u c k

We're not collectivist, you retard. So, yeah. You are wrong.

It is unto the individual that true liberty can exist. Under the perspective of individual, it is impossible to see someone in a racist view as you look at a person's individual character outside of their collective group.

People often tout the "blacks have lower IQ therefore not as valuable" yet at the same time you have a clear bell curve, where you have exceptionally intelligent people where the blacks as a whole are not seen. This is why you look at things from an individualist perspective.

It's the same thing. The jew is not your problem. Focus on the individual and their character. Not the collective, because there are poor jews. Poor stupid jews. Poor intelligent jews. Super intelligent productive jews.

Same thing with the left. Left looks at the right and puts it into a collective stance of idiocy. they are also wrong playing the same collectivist mentality.

How is it that you don't have a collectivist mindset when specifically targeting all Jews and not just individuals who happen to be Jews?

How is that not collectivist?

>I'm not wrong.
You are, for three separate reasons.

First, you broadly define "collectivism" and then rail on how it is an evil without considering why people would make a collective in the first place. This transitions to empty rhetoric about the Founding Fathers who were in fact very collectivist. Which is why they considered the state governments to be their own sovereigns. I can agree with you on the abuse of federal government as daddy gibs but this is besides the point. Second, your point "They persecute a collective without considering the individual. It is unto the individual that you can promote true freedom to span generations." You give little light into the historical contexts of why a collective was persecuted. Considering this history is important if you're going to cite the Nazis because there was a legitimate jewish class ruling Germany and communists rioting in the streets. This is the Weimar Republic. Which was an absolute shitshow of decadence and degenercy, the likes of which we are seeing today, which is why you see people going towards a collective because the world has gone bananas, again. Third is your point "We believe in equal treatment for all citizens regardless of race, creed, etc." You are preaching for true individual freedom, but would deny a man the right of freedom of association. Why should I allow niggers, jews, crackers, gays or whoever I don't like into my store? Which is my property by definition. If you are advocating of the perspective of the individual then you would abandon this ridiculous statement because not all citizens are equal. Under the law, yes, but that requires a state to enforce and a collective to decide what those laws are and how they will be enforced.

You're a walking conundrum of poorly thought out libertarian talking points. I love the idea of libertarianism being a norm, but I realize you idiots could fuck up a wet dream, aka, the libertarian party.

Attached: evola2.png (700x700, 60K)

This is Jow Forums retard, we worship kikes.

Attached: 0C422429-DE05-446E-AE9B-DCEA58B65431.jpg (1440x1080, 264K)

Attached: 417DCADD-381F-4F98-9771-E3D8AC326CB5.jpg (500x500, 137K)

Attached: EB545BAA-9A02-4DCC-9449-75036E722EF2.png (612x612, 275K)

Attached: 695482FA-6C71-428A-942D-3BD6A15283C6.jpg (1440x1080, 539K)

Attached: 964AC4F7-7062-4EB1-8BBB-01C2C16D2E26.jpg (550x328, 20K)

Speak for yourself

It's always hilarious watching 'libertarian' people aka milquetoast faggots like that faggot praceotom being unable to come with counterarguments to this

fuck off, im sick of people shilling their articles on here. you should come here to have a discussion not to make a speech, faggot. you disrespect us with this trash and probably never even come here.

No. You are misrepresenting what I say and taking things as absolute fact to simply make me seem less legitimate.

>This transitions to empty rhetoric about the Founding Fathers who were in fact very collectivist.

No. They were individualist by all sense of the imagination. Some were more collective than others but all came to the consensus to maintain separation of powers to maintain individual sovereignty.

> Why should I allow niggers, jews, crackers, gays or whoever I don't like into my store?
You should be allowed to deny whoever you want to your store.

I am going to stay politically consistent regardless of what words you want to put in my mouth. Also, separate your sentences. Press enter a couple of times. It makes people want to read your content more.

>Too hard to read so much. Why can't you feed it to me in a concise way waah waah.

Are we now?

Attached: Aeons and Archons.png (1856x887, 1.23M)

>y’all

Thanks for letting me know you’re borderline retarded before I wasted my time reading your horseshoe theory bullshit

Over course you’re a lolbertarian, and of course you’re proud to stick by your principles as your nation is filled with racist niggers and spics who hate you for being white and constantly vote against libertarian policies until the point where any form of libertarian government become unfeasible

I'm only tolerant of authoritarians as long as they help me rid my country of muslims, niggers and jews so that me and my people may live free. Beyond that authoritarians can go fuck themselves. No one tells me what to do.

That is why the constitution exists. So you cannot simply 'vote' away people's rights. That's what the founding fathers had intended and guess what, still working, though shaky if you allow it to be.

To get rid of a race/creed is in effect collectivist authoritarian.

Great job dismissing based on completely unrelated matters. Does anyone want to actually debate on this or will they just sit idly by in vocal dismissal, the same doctrine used by leftist collective socialists.

Yes, but temporary. As soon as racial homogeneity and a less threatening environment is achieved I revert back to being a libertarian.

No. Not temporary. Not as long as the constitution exists that the majority cannot vote away your primary rights. Even the most corrupt politicians have a hard time simply even implying the question to challenge it.

actually, i said:
> fuck off, im sick of people shilling their articles on here. you should come here to have a discussion not to make a speech, faggot. you disrespect us with this trash and probably never even come here.
its kind of ironic that you charge me with being unable to read something because its too long, while you embarrassingly demonstrate that you have failed to read and comprehend a mere 3 sentences... you should be ashamed of this lmfao not even joking. but you are probably too stupid to feel shame about this lmao.

>you should come here to have a discussion not to make a speech, faggot.
This is the part I referenced for you. Good luck to you.

anarcho-monarchism is best, prove me wrong. no masters except unto ourselves, no slaves

Attached: 07.jpg (1024x768, 75K)

>muh constitution
Well, the constitution is written (and has been rewritten only a couple of decades ago) by a bunch of jews and cucks so in my eyes it's null and void.
>hurrdurr no discrimination of any kind
Not how humans work, and it's a double edged sword. Right now it's fucking me over harder than it protects me.

Anarchist monarchy.
This is the same exact doctrine of a socialist conservative. They're total antithesis of one another. Show me a sovereign that existed like this. I would imagine it would probably be like a king that rules with an iron fist, but lets people live free with the only emphasis on defense of physical problems?

Also this applies to my own country obviously

>Well, the constitution is written (and has been rewritten only a couple of decades ago) by a bunch of jews and cucks so in my eyes it's null and void.

So I will remove your "Jew" and "cuck" reference for a reasonable debate:

>Well, the constitution is written (and has been rewritten only a couple of decades ago) by a bunch of corrupt politicians so in my eyes it's null and void.

Okay now we're talking. This is what you fight. You fight people trying to circumvent the essential freedoms of the U.S.A.. Secondly:
>Not how humans work, and it's a double edged sword. Right now it's fucking me over harder than it protects me.
No discrimination of any kind. It is the same corrupt policy of the collectivist left. Same thing but a different people. To the left it is the bourgeois. To you guys it is the Jew. You are playing a game of collectivism and you're wrong for doing it.

no, anarchy in that there is no state, no masters. monarchism in that we rule ourselves, since the anarchist aspect. i see it basically like this user put it as erisianism

That's just plain old ancap. Just ancap.

I'm very close to ancap. I'm a believer of a minarchist society. Minimal government intervention.

no fucking government intervention, why do we need it? does ancap place significance on the growth of the spirit? have to say im not all too familiar with it

no idea what you are trying to say here, but the chief difference between a discussion and a speech (perhaps i should have been more accurate: i am referring to your article which you shill in the OP) is not that one is long and the other isn't. honor and peace to you.

damn nigga, nothing?

Why not stop shilling your fucking blog and post normally? You're not special, faggot

as i said this guy is here to advertise his article, not have a discussion. its a waste of time to engage with him... this shit needed to be saged and gone off the board with 0 replies if we all had any sense....

You think that shit is 2000 characters long I don't want it split up. Plus I have a table in there, how do you do a table on here?

2bhaytch, i didnt really read anything, just wanted to hear what he and another user who posted an interesting picture had to say. clearly it wasnt much of anything

You guys never read anything.

>You are misrepresenting what I say and taking things as absolute fact to simply make me seem less legitimate.
Then learn how to write better so you're more precise with your language or get the fuck out. You seem illegitimate because your writing sucks and your points are made in the worst ways possible. You wanted argument, you got it.

>They were individualist by all sense of the imagination.
What does this even mean? Is this just some nonsense you made up to sound intelligent?

>Some were more collective than others but all came to the consensus to maintain separation of powers to maintain individual sovereignty.
Of the states. Have you not read the federalist papers? They believed in individual freedom but also in the collective of a people. Which is why militia service was mandatory and there were many laws regarding personal conduct against "unacceptable" behavior.

>You should be allowed to deny whoever you want to your store.
Ok. But this does not happen with equal protection under the law. Rectify this.

>Press enter a couple of times. It makes people want to read your content more.
>because reading paragraphs is hard and stuff

Attached: 1541429289790.jpg (399x527, 70K)

you cant even respond to a simple question, how are you going to get butthurt about anything? other anons have pegged you good, go peddle your diary entry on reddit where you belong

Attached: 1507678959784.gif (300x228, 1.91M)