|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
 Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 8:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Both liberal and conservative are by and large useless terms now because the dynamic has changed. Liberalism/progressivism turned out to be Jewish globalism (because it was a variation of communism all along) and conservativism is now ethnic nationalism, which is the only worldview/ideology/whatever that is capable of combating Jewish globalism. In the most basic sense, although he cannot comprehend it, failed to articulate it, and isn't even aware of it, Leon is right that conservativism/ethnic nationalism can be defined fairly simply. But that's only because it is each subset of humanity's natural state of being, and it doesn't mean one group's version of it is in any way comparable to another's. Liberalism is not progressive, it is regressive, because it promotes changes that distort reality and nature itself. It is normative inversion, i.e., Judaism. That's why people like Leon and Kuros, individuals who are so convinced that this inverted version of reality is real, flounder all over the place, have no clue what's going on, and can be deconstructed so easily by people like myself who actually know how this shit works. What they think they believe has no basis in reality, it's backwards, it's an illusion. They have bought into Jewish globalism, they've married into it, they're tied to it forever, so to accept that it isn't real is incomprehensible for them. Which is understandable. But that is a global system that will destroy this world and mongrelize Western Civilization if White Europeans aren't able to stop it. That's just the way it is. At this point, any step towards nationalism and ethnic awareness among Whites is a step in the right direction, but it's going to be an uphill battle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Liberalism is not progressive, it is regressive, because it promotes changes that distort reality and nature itself. It is normative inversion |
I think people are starting to see this with the promotion of ever-more deviant behaviour. Perhaps people could accept the whole 'love wins' narrative of gay couples getting married. Its much harder to accept the idea that mentally ill males dressing up as women should be allowed into female locker rooms, or that your 8-year old children need to be taught about 'gender fluidity.' And where does the left go after trannies? There are literally no social norms they will not try to tear down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Liberalism is not progressive, it is regressive, because it promotes changes that distort reality and nature itself. It is normative inversion |
I think people are starting to see this with the promotion of ever-more deviant behaviour. Perhaps people could accept the whole 'love wins' narrative of gay couples getting married. Its much harder to accept the idea that mentally ill males dressing up as women should be allowed into female locker rooms, or that your 8-year old children need to be taught about 'gender fluidity.' And where does the left go after trannies? There are literally no social norms they will not try to tear down. |
As the left is associated with "liberals", it is indeed interesting how the undermining of traditional/moral norms (conservative) breaks down the fabric of said culture.
Speaking of norms, Swartz mentioned, earlier, something in regards to the French Revolution. With that in mind, as I have read, that is when the terms "conservatism" and "liberalism" really came into the political box of theories.
So...then, was Conservatism reactionary or, was Liberalism reactionary? I am not trying ti trip anyone up here, I'm just in it for a good discussion. And, if the powers that be THEN were (Bourbons) truly afraid of loosing power, who were THEY backed bay. Was it the Jews? I am curious if that revolution/evolution was tied with the narrative that Swartz is passionate about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Both liberal and conservative are by and large useless terms now because the dynamic has changed. Liberalism/progressivism turned out to be Jewish globalism (because it was a variation of communism all along) and conservativism is now ethnic nationalism, which is the only worldview/ideology/whatever that is capable of combating Jewish globalism. In the most basic sense, although he cannot comprehend it, failed to articulate it, and isn't even aware of it, Leon is right that conservativism/ethnic nationalism can be defined fairly simply. But that's only because it is each subset of humanity's natural state of being, and it doesn't mean one group's version of it is in any way comparable to another's. Liberalism is not progressive, it is regressive, because it promotes changes that distort reality and nature itself. It is normative inversion, i.e., Judaism. That's why people like Leon and Kuros, individuals who are so convinced that this inverted version of reality is real, flounder all over the place, have no clue what's going on, and can be deconstructed so easily by people like myself who actually know how this shit works. What they think they believe has no basis in reality, it's backwards, it's an illusion. They have bought into Jewish globalism, they've married into it, they're tied to it forever, so to accept that it isn't real is incomprehensible for them. Which is understandable. But that is a global system that will destroy this world and mongrelize Western Civilization if White Europeans aren't able to stop it. That's just the way it is. At this point, any step towards nationalism and ethnic awareness among Whites is a step in the right direction, but it's going to be an uphill battle. |
World-historical Drama Queen.
We just disagree. Get over it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Liberalism is not progressive, it is regressive, because it promotes changes that distort reality and nature itself. It is normative inversion |
I think people are starting to see this with the promotion of ever-more deviant behaviour. Perhaps people could accept the whole 'love wins' narrative of gay couples getting married. Its much harder to accept the idea that mentally ill males dressing up as women should be allowed into female locker rooms, or that your 8-year old children need to be taught about 'gender fluidity.' And where does the left go after trannies? There are literally no social norms they will not try to tear down. |
That last part is not true!
Liberals loathe infidelity in marriage.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/french-more-accepting-of-infidelity-than-people-in-other-countries/
| Quote: |
| Across the countries polled, a median of 79% consider infidelity unacceptable, including an overwhelming 84% of Americans. |
You see, Bigverne? We will always at least share the prohibition against infidelity (and scorn against the French).  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
And since that particular statement isn't even true, I guess we don't need to worry about what those deeply implied differences you failed to mention might look like. Your statements were incoherent and false, not to mention full of punctuation errors and misspellings, Leon. When I told you why you were wrong, you attempted to change what you said to something more in line with what I said, then you tried to tell me that what I said was what you said. Now you're trying to get out of it by saying it all just went over my head?
Okay, friend. I'll be nice, because this one was pretty bad.
But I will need to restate the first line of my first response so the outcome here is as clear as possible for the unofficial record: “Leon doesn't know what he's talking about.” |
A) I like my kindle fire tablet a lot, but its keyboard and autocorrect is poorly designed, so I don't feel too bad about spelling or punctuation issues.
B) anyone want to argue that increased changes in society has not led to alienation? Or that if a society never changes regardless of circumstance, that it will not stagnate? Anyone with a cursory grasp of history?
It's not that I don't know what I am talking about, it is that you don't know what I am talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Liberalism is not progressive, it is regressive, because it promotes changes that distort reality and nature itself. It is normative inversion |
I think people are starting to see this with the promotion of ever-more deviant behaviour. Perhaps people could accept the whole 'love wins' narrative of gay couples getting married. Its much harder to accept the idea that mentally ill males dressing up as women should be allowed into female locker rooms, or that your 8-year old children need to be taught about 'gender fluidity.' And where does the left go after trannies? There are literally no social norms they will not try to tear down. |
As the left is associated with "liberals", it is indeed interesting how the undermining of traditional/moral norms (conservative) breaks down the fabric of said culture.
Speaking of norms, Swartz mentioned, earlier, something in regards to the French Revolution. With that in mind, as I have read, that is when the terms "conservatism" and "liberalism" really came into the political box of theories.
So...then, was Conservatism reactionary or, was Liberalism reactionary? I am not trying ti trip anyone up here, I'm just in it for a good discussion. And, if the powers that be THEN were (Bourbons) truly afraid of loosing power, who were THEY backed bay. Was it the Jews? I am curious if that revolution/evolution was tied with the narrative that Swartz is passionate about. |
The French Revolution (or the various societal, philosophical, and scientific changes that led to it) is a good starting point, and modern day liberalism is still generally rooted in Enlightenment idealism, however vague that connection now is. But it's probably best to view what you're trying to understand as dualism, meaning both are reactionary forces. Europeans are extremely idealistic and moral, and Enlightenment idealism and modern day liberalism both play(ed) off this desire to create universal value systems. It worked pretty well when it was about egalitarianism for European men, but it completely falls apart when you include women, freaks, and other races who are dissimilar in nature to Europeans. It's complex and ambiguous, but I think it's fair to say that Napoleon, who used this idealism to liberate the Jews and grant them equal status, gave them the footing necessary to begin subverting our idealistic nature and corrupting our cultures. However, they had been doing that for a long time anyway and already had considerable power in places like Britain, but it allowed them to more easily begin using their control over usury to corrupt our elites and pit Europeans against each other. They continue to pit us against each other and pit other groups against us because it's what they do, as they've always done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Both liberal and conservative are by and large useless terms now because the dynamic has changed. Liberalism/progressivism turned out to be Jewish globalism (because it was a variation of communism all along) and conservativism is now ethnic nationalism, which is the only worldview/ideology/whatever that is capable of combating Jewish globalism. In the most basic sense, although he cannot comprehend it, failed to articulate it, and isn't even aware of it, Leon is right that conservativism/ethnic nationalism can be defined fairly simply. But that's only because it is each subset of humanity's natural state of being, and it doesn't mean one group's version of it is in any way comparable to another's. Liberalism is not progressive, it is regressive, because it promotes changes that distort reality and nature itself. It is normative inversion, i.e., Judaism. That's why people like Leon and Kuros, individuals who are so convinced that this inverted version of reality is real, flounder all over the place, have no clue what's going on, and can be deconstructed so easily by people like myself who actually know how this shit works. What they think they believe has no basis in reality, it's backwards, it's an illusion. They have bought into Jewish globalism, they've married into it, they're tied to it forever, so to accept that it isn't real is incomprehensible for them. Which is understandable. But that is a global system that will destroy this world and mongrelize Western Civilization if White Europeans aren't able to stop it. That's just the way it is. At this point, any step towards nationalism and ethnic awareness among Whites is a step in the right direction, but it's going to be an uphill battle. |
World-historical Drama Queen.
We just disagree. Get over it. |
That implies parity between our viewpoints, but yours can't stand on their own, which is why I've been able to pop them like balloons and turn you into an evasive coward who is afraid to respond to me directly. You can only disagree in your own deluded little world because you're incapable of behaving like a real man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
And since that particular statement isn't even true, I guess we don't need to worry about what those deeply implied differences you failed to mention might look like. Your statements were incoherent and false, not to mention full of punctuation errors and misspellings, Leon. When I told you why you were wrong, you attempted to change what you said to something more in line with what I said, then you tried to tell me that what I said was what you said. Now you're trying to get out of it by saying it all just went over my head?
Okay, friend. I'll be nice, because this one was pretty bad.
But I will need to restate the first line of my first response so the outcome here is as clear as possible for the unofficial record: “Leon doesn't know what he's talking about.” |
A) I like my kindle fire tablet a lot, but its keyboard and autocorrect is poorly designed, so I don't feel too bad about spelling or punctuation issues.
B) anyone want to argue that increased changes in society has not led to alienation? Or that if a society never changes regardless of circumstance, that it will not stagnate? Anyone with a cursory grasp of history?
It's not that I don't know what I am talking about, it is that you don't know what I am talking about. |
I know exactly what you're talking about, and I'm telling you that your approach is wrong. You are using bogus liberal terminology and a fictional spectrum of what constitutes “progress” that was implanted in you by the left. You're parroting their assumptions that a society with a traditional orientation equals stagnation, and that “change” (whatever you think that means) as implemented by the left is a good thing. What I'm saying is that this paradigm is false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
And since that particular statement isn't even true, I guess we don't need to worry about what those deeply implied differences you failed to mention might look like. Your statements were incoherent and false, not to mention full of punctuation errors and misspellings, Leon. When I told you why you were wrong, you attempted to change what you said to something more in line with what I said, then you tried to tell me that what I said was what you said. Now you're trying to get out of it by saying it all just went over my head?
Okay, friend. I'll be nice, because this one was pretty bad.
But I will need to restate the first line of my first response so the outcome here is as clear as possible for the unofficial record: “Leon doesn't know what he's talking about.” |
A) I like my kindle fire tablet a lot, but its keyboard and autocorrect is poorly designed, so I don't feel too bad about spelling or punctuation issues.
B) anyone want to argue that increased changes in society has not led to alienation? Or that if a society never changes regardless of circumstance, that it will not stagnate? Anyone with a cursory grasp of history?
It's not that I don't know what I am talking about, it is that you don't know what I am talking about. |
I know exactly what you're talking about, and I'm telling you that your approach is wrong. You are using bogus liberal terminology and a fictional spectrum of what constitutes “progress” that was implanted in you by the left. You're parroting their assumptions that a society with a traditional orientation equals stagnation, and that “change” (whatever you think that means) as implemented by the left is a good thing. What I'm saying is that this paradigm is false. |
No, I didn't say that. I said too much conservatism leads to stagnation, not that traditional orientation itself leads to stagnation. I also said too much change leads to alienation, which is hardly the same as saying that all change implemented by the left is a good thing, or do you assume I meant alienation is a desired outcome?
It's clear you don't know what I'm talking about in the way you twist and turn what I say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
And since that particular statement isn't even true, I guess we don't need to worry about what those deeply implied differences you failed to mention might look like. Your statements were incoherent and false, not to mention full of punctuation errors and misspellings, Leon. When I told you why you were wrong, you attempted to change what you said to something more in line with what I said, then you tried to tell me that what I said was what you said. Now you're trying to get out of it by saying it all just went over my head?
Okay, friend. I'll be nice, because this one was pretty bad.
But I will need to restate the first line of my first response so the outcome here is as clear as possible for the unofficial record: “Leon doesn't know what he's talking about.” |
A) I like my kindle fire tablet a lot, but its keyboard and autocorrect is poorly designed, so I don't feel too bad about spelling or punctuation issues.
B) anyone want to argue that increased changes in society has not led to alienation? Or that if a society never changes regardless of circumstance, that it will not stagnate? Anyone with a cursory grasp of history?
It's not that I don't know what I am talking about, it is that you don't know what I am talking about. |
I know exactly what you're talking about, and I'm telling you that your approach is wrong. You are using bogus liberal terminology and a fictional spectrum of what constitutes “progress” that was implanted in you by the left. You're parroting their assumptions that a society with a traditional orientation equals stagnation, and that “change” (whatever you think that means) as implemented by the left is a good thing. What I'm saying is that this paradigm is false. |
No, I didn't say that. I said too much conservatism leads to stagnation, not that traditional orientation itself leads to stagnation. I also said too much change leads to alienation, which is hardly the same as saying that all change implemented by the left is a good thing, or do you assume I meant alienation is a desired outcome?
It's clear you don't know what I'm talking about in the way you twist and turn what I say. |
No, Leon, I think it's you who doesn't know what you're talking about. And until you state what “too much conservativism” means, define your parameters of stagnation, and explain how conservativism differs form traditionalism or how change leads to alienation, neither of us are going to have a firm grasp of what you're attempting to talk about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| trueblue wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Liberalism is not progressive, it is regressive, because it promotes changes that distort reality and nature itself. It is normative inversion |
I think people are starting to see this with the promotion of ever-more deviant behaviour. Perhaps people could accept the whole 'love wins' narrative of gay couples getting married. Its much harder to accept the idea that mentally ill males dressing up as women should be allowed into female locker rooms, or that your 8-year old children need to be taught about 'gender fluidity.' And where does the left go after trannies? There are literally no social norms they will not try to tear down. |
As the left is associated with "liberals", it is indeed interesting how the undermining of traditional/moral norms (conservative) breaks down the fabric of said culture.
Speaking of norms, Swartz mentioned, earlier, something in regards to the French Revolution. With that in mind, as I have read, that is when the terms "conservatism" and "liberalism" really came into the political box of theories.
So...then, was Conservatism reactionary or, was Liberalism reactionary? I am not trying ti trip anyone up here, I'm just in it for a good discussion. And, if the powers that be THEN were (Bourbons) truly afraid of loosing power, who were THEY backed bay. Was it the Jews? I am curious if that revolution/evolution was tied with the narrative that Swartz is passionate about. |
The French Revolution (or the various societal, philosophical, and scientific changes that led to it) is a good starting point, and modern day liberalism is still generally rooted in Enlightenment idealism, however vague that connection now is. But it's probably best to view what you're trying to understand as dualism, meaning both are reactionary forces. Europeans are extremely idealistic and moral, and Enlightenment idealism and modern day liberalism both play(ed) off this desire to create universal value systems. It worked pretty well when it was about egalitarianism for European men, but it completely falls apart when you include women, freaks, and other races who are dissimilar in nature to Europeans. It's complex and ambiguous, but I think it's fair to say that Napoleon, who used this idealism to liberate the Jews and grant them equal status, gave them the footing necessary to begin subverting our idealistic nature and corrupting our cultures. However, they had been doing that for a long time anyway and already had considerable power in places like Britain, but it allowed them to more easily begin using their control over usury to corrupt our elites and pit Europeans against each other. They continue to pit us against each other and pit other groups against us because it's what they do, as they've always done. |
I do recall reading in a book, regarding what you said about Napoleon. I did not finish it (as of yet) but it did mention it.
I simply wish that modern day "conservatives" would stop feeding the narrative that the opposition is of the "liberal" tree.
What is liberal about killing unborn babies?
What is liberal about about completely demonizing opposing view points?
What is liberal about political correctness?
What is liberal about breaking down the culture of a host nation?
What is liberal about NOT having/enforcing borders to secure national sovereignty?
What is liberal about being dependent on the government?
What is liberal about NOT having an educated, moral and enlightened society (as the FF's hoped for)?
These things are only liberal, if one is NOT with the Constitution and aligned with another ideology. So again, I feel that conservatism, is actually THE liberals. I wish "they" or, the establishment would take back the word.
But, that would intrude on the script.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Both liberal and conservative are by and large useless terms now because the dynamic has changed. Liberalism/progressivism turned out to be Jewish globalism (because it was a variation of communism all along) and conservativism is now ethnic nationalism, which is the only worldview/ideology/whatever that is capable of combating Jewish globalism. In the most basic sense, although he cannot comprehend it, failed to articulate it, and isn't even aware of it, Leon is right that conservativism/ethnic nationalism can be defined fairly simply. But that's only because it is each subset of humanity's natural state of being, and it doesn't mean one group's version of it is in any way comparable to another's. Liberalism is not progressive, it is regressive, because it promotes changes that distort reality and nature itself. It is normative inversion, i.e., Judaism. That's why people like Leon and Kuros, individuals who are so convinced that this inverted version of reality is real, flounder all over the place, have no clue what's going on, and can be deconstructed so easily by people like myself who actually know how this shit works. What they think they believe has no basis in reality, it's backwards, it's an illusion. They have bought into Jewish globalism, they've married into it, they're tied to it forever, so to accept that it isn't real is incomprehensible for them. Which is understandable. But that is a global system that will destroy this world and mongrelize Western Civilization if White Europeans aren't able to stop it. That's just the way it is. At this point, any step towards nationalism and ethnic awareness among Whites is a step in the right direction, but it's going to be an uphill battle. |
World-historical Drama Queen.
We just disagree. Get over it. |
That implies parity between our viewpoints, but yours can't stand on their own, which is why I've been able to pop them like balloons and turn you into an evasive coward who is afraid to respond to me directly. You can only disagree in your own deluded little world because you're incapable of behaving like a real man. |
Internet tough-guys apparently also complain about those: "who use words like “hate” feel it's their duty to enforce the existing limitations on what we are and aren't allowed to talk about publicly."
Yes, somehow I am a coward but I also enforce limitations on your speech; I am both all powerful but also a coward. Just like the Jews you hate and blame all your problems on.
Apparently, according to internet tough-guys, responding to someone on a message board about politics is evidence or not of manliness.
Indeed, it is rather the opposite. The ten minutes I spent composing this post was totally wasted and should have been devoted doing just about anything else.
But you know what? It was hilarious watching you defend Trump after he begged Adelson for $100 million, and Adelson agreed to claim ownership over him. After all, your two obsessions on this board are, on the one hand, going on about how Jews corrupt the Left and the West, and on the other hand, talking about how Trump is some sort of savior from that.
Trump made you a chump. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Both liberal and conservative are by and large useless terms now because the dynamic has changed. Liberalism/progressivism turned out to be Jewish globalism (because it was a variation of communism all along) and conservativism is now ethnic nationalism, which is the only worldview/ideology/whatever that is capable of combating Jewish globalism. In the most basic sense, although he cannot comprehend it, failed to articulate it, and isn't even aware of it, Leon is right that conservativism/ethnic nationalism can be defined fairly simply. But that's only because it is each subset of humanity's natural state of being, and it doesn't mean one group's version of it is in any way comparable to another's. Liberalism is not progressive, it is regressive, because it promotes changes that distort reality and nature itself. It is normative inversion, i.e., Judaism. That's why people like Leon and Kuros, individuals who are so convinced that this inverted version of reality is real, flounder all over the place, have no clue what's going on, and can be deconstructed so easily by people like myself who actually know how this shit works. What they think they believe has no basis in reality, it's backwards, it's an illusion. They have bought into Jewish globalism, they've married into it, they're tied to it forever, so to accept that it isn't real is incomprehensible for them. Which is understandable. But that is a global system that will destroy this world and mongrelize Western Civilization if White Europeans aren't able to stop it. That's just the way it is. At this point, any step towards nationalism and ethnic awareness among Whites is a step in the right direction, but it's going to be an uphill battle. |
World-historical Drama Queen.
We just disagree. Get over it. |
That implies parity between our viewpoints, but yours can't stand on their own, which is why I've been able to pop them like balloons and turn you into an evasive coward who is afraid to respond to me directly. You can only disagree in your own deluded little world because you're incapable of behaving like a real man. |
Internet tough-guys apparently also complain about those: "who use words like “hate” feel it's their duty to enforce the existing limitations on what we are and aren't allowed to talk about publicly."
Yes, somehow I am a coward but I also enforce limitations on your speech; I am both all powerful but also a coward. Just like the Jews you hate and blame all your problems on.
Apparently, according to internet tough-guys, responding to someone on a message board about politics is evidence or not of manliness.
Indeed, it is rather the opposite. The ten minutes I spent composing this post was totally wasted and should have been devoted doing just about anything else.
But you know what? It was hilarious watching you defend Trump after he begged Adelson for $100 million, and Adelson agreed to claim ownership over him. After all, your two obsessions on this board are, on the one hand, going on about how Jews corrupt the Left and the West, and on the other hand, talking about how Trump is some sort of savior from that.
Trump made you a chump. |
You have accomplished that task all by yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Both liberal and conservative are by and large useless terms now because the dynamic has changed. Liberalism/progressivism turned out to be Jewish globalism (because it was a variation of communism all along) and conservativism is now ethnic nationalism, which is the only worldview/ideology/whatever that is capable of combating Jewish globalism. In the most basic sense, although he cannot comprehend it, failed to articulate it, and isn't even aware of it, Leon is right that conservativism/ethnic nationalism can be defined fairly simply. But that's only because it is each subset of humanity's natural state of being, and it doesn't mean one group's version of it is in any way comparable to another's. Liberalism is not progressive, it is regressive, because it promotes changes that distort reality and nature itself. It is normative inversion, i.e., Judaism. That's why people like Leon and Kuros, individuals who are so convinced that this inverted version of reality is real, flounder all over the place, have no clue what's going on, and can be deconstructed so easily by people like myself who actually know how this shit works. What they think they believe has no basis in reality, it's backwards, it's an illusion. They have bought into Jewish globalism, they've married into it, they're tied to it forever, so to accept that it isn't real is incomprehensible for them. Which is understandable. But that is a global system that will destroy this world and mongrelize Western Civilization if White Europeans aren't able to stop it. That's just the way it is. At this point, any step towards nationalism and ethnic awareness among Whites is a step in the right direction, but it's going to be an uphill battle. |
World-historical Drama Queen.
We just disagree. Get over it. |
That implies parity between our viewpoints, but yours can't stand on their own, which is why I've been able to pop them like balloons and turn you into an evasive coward who is afraid to respond to me directly. You can only disagree in your own deluded little world because you're incapable of behaving like a real man. |
Internet tough-guys apparently also complain about those: "who use words like “hate” feel it's their duty to enforce the existing limitations on what we are and aren't allowed to talk about publicly."
Yes, somehow I am a coward but I also enforce limitations on your speech; I am both all powerful but also a coward. Just like the Jews you hate and blame all your problems on.
Apparently, according to internet tough-guys, responding to someone on a message board about politics is evidence or not of manliness.
Indeed, it is rather the opposite. The ten minutes I spent composing this post was totally wasted and should have been devoted doing just about anything else.
But you know what? It was hilarious watching you defend Trump after he begged Adelson for $100 million, and Adelson agreed to claim ownership over him. After all, your two obsessions on this board are, on the one hand, going on about how Jews corrupt the Left and the West, and on the other hand, talking about how Trump is some sort of savior from that.
Trump made you a chump. |
You have accomplished that task all by yourself. |
Trueblue,
I appreciate the sentiment, but I just post here.
And thank you for quoting the whole exchange. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
