Can you point out what is wrong with liberal?

Progression is merely a sequence.
It is not inherently correct.

Sure you can be all those things, but the minute you bring any of that outside your house and into mine is where tolerance becomes being forced to put up with bullshit.

Tolerance is the last virtue of dying society.

Attached: Rem.jpg (726x936, 173K)

depends on what you define as "progress"...

> Invite barbarian shitskins to you country for "diversity quotas" is considered progress to some people.

> eradicating an extreme political philosophy disguised as a religion is progress to others.

also, you (((nips))) imported like 10 mudslimes and half of them were arrested for gang-rape or some shit like that.

to answer your question: what is wrong with liberal?

> liberalism breeds degeneracy and makes accomodation for useless appendages on society.

Attached: is this.png (556x500, 334K)

Exactly.

One could be progressing towards a fire, then into said fire, and then through it. Is it a good idea? I think the OP should try it.

Attached: 1554576661529m.jpg (1024x561, 140K)

>Tolerance of nihilism and moral relevance
>Tolerate deconstructivism
>Progress into civil war
You're the kind of faggot that would change the bill of rights and call it progress.

Tolerance is a state defined by its breaking point. Sustainable in a closed society of ascetics? Perhaps. In a world fuelled by emotional imbalance and dopamine addiction? How do you think that's going to play out. Freedom is largely defined by progressives as state-sponsored rights. Obviously this means the threat of coercion if you don't fall in line with the edicts of the state. The more of these rights one has, the greater the likelihood that eventually these rights will overlap, giving the state the power to interpret through the prism of whatever the animus behind it happens to be. If you're cool with theocracy, then that's great. It has its drawbacks. Economic growth does not happen via redistribution of existing wealth. The onus is on those without to find means of creating new avenues, something that becomes vastly more unlikely if they're maintained like prisoners in a state of sated indolence.

Attached: hiiiii.jpg (364x466, 49K)

Freedom isnt a very meaningful concept

There is nothing inherently wrong with them. They want things that most people can agree with; equal rights for everyone, fairness in the economy, and so on.

The problem with their beliefs is that they are utopian ideas and their ideal world is a fantasy that has never existed and never will. Instead of looking at the reality of human nature and trying to adapt these values to fit what could work accepting that there will be winners and losers, they just push the same ideas to disastrous effect.

I believe that most white liberals can be reformed with time and experience, the mixed breeds and displaced ethnicities have to pull this line forever because without it they have no identity and homeland.

Progress comes at a price. State enforced "Progress" is diametrically opposed to freedom.

How much of my personal liberty and economic freedom do you need to take from me to fulfill your progressive goals? If "progress" is always a good thing like you say, then this means you have no qualms taking all my personal liberties and economic freedom to achieve your goals. It's moral and just to take from me without limits to achieve your goal because "Progress is better than backwards".

This is why you are my enemy. You don't have my interests in mind, you only want to take from me to further your own goals. It's inherent to your values.

>freedom
Confused with aimlessness and hedonism. If everyone does what they want now but that results in no future generations being born is that maximizing freedom? What about the freedom of those future people that were never born? If life would end there would be no one to experience freedom.
>tolerance
Confused with being a weak pushover. We need more intolerance. Why do we tolerate being targeted with thousands of nuclear weapons constantly? Why do we tolerate all media organizations being propaganda tools uninterested in the truth? Why the fuck should I tolerate even a single nigger in my fragile ethnically homogeneous nation with a dying language?
>economic growth
We need economic sustainability. Growth is irrelevant and everyone knows it but it makes international entities that don't care about the future of any nation money and increases their power which is all that's needed for something to be defined as positive.

Tolerance is natural. As in, people naturally tolerate all sorts of shit. Because in many cases, tolerance is in their best interest.

If someone accidentally inconveniences me, I have the two options, tolerance or intolerance. Tolerance, I cut my losses, I move on.
Intolerance, I demand the other person rectify the issue to my own satisfaction.
Now you can clearly see, the first has no cost. It takes no effort to do nothing. The second, however, requires commitment from me. It comes at a cost. As well as that, there is no guarantee that the other party will resolve the issue to my satisfaction. Hell, there's no guarantee that it won't make things worse for me (i.e, I might get bashed by them). So, from a logical standpoint, a simple cost/risk/reward analysis, there's a certain level of inconvenience that must be done to me where intolerance even becomes the viable course of action. In many, many cases, tolerance will naturally occur because tolerance is simply in my best interest. If tolerance is not in my best interest, then why would I practice it? Why would I willingly allow myself to get fucked over? Why would anyone? Why should anyone?

What liberals glorify is tolerance when it isn't in your best interest. Lets look at a famous liberalism. Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance". This is a peak demonstration of leftist stupidity. There is no paradox, there is a loaded question (that tolerance *as a virtue* must be defended). He follows the perfectly logical chain of reasoning that I just went through, pretty much, and reaches the only logical conclusion available. That tolerance when it is not in your best interest will simply lead to you getting fucked over.
However, seeing as Karl Popper went into this reasoning with a baseless prior assumption, (tolerance as a virtue must be defended), he therefore declares it a paradox. He then declares that he has reached an answer to something he declared a paradox.

Attached: Karl Popper's Paradox of 2+2=5.png (800x1000, 470K)

The problem is that the current "progress" being made only serves to take our God given rights we are trying to conserve.

Attached: 1533320439622s.jpg (250x236, 8K)

Tolerance is progress towards degeneration.

It’s like jumping off of a cliff and saying you got a little higher before you started going down in a parabolic function

Liberals are not progressive. Do not confuse progress with hedonism.
Liberals want you to 'stay here', and enjoy what Earth has to offer in all the weird and wild ways; you must reject this.
The course of humankind is to go forward.
Stagnation leads only to death.

What's funny is that in the early 20th century, the people that called themselves "progressives" actually WERE progressive in the sense that Jow Forums would like. That is, creating a more healthy, technologically advanced and self-actualized society.
Today "progress" means,
>brown diversity
>butt cummies

Attached: 1553626332945.gif (220x233, 273K)

You wouldn't allow your kids absolute freedom would you?
>Go ahead and touch the hot stove billy.

Progress is a shit-tier religious meme.