Problem with Ratskeps

This community is group therapy for disaffected leftists, constantly pining for 1995 and 2008 when you had a good economy or thought race relations could be satisfied. And a remembrance of GamerGate's thwarted promise. A hope for a clean victory.

Distributist liked this summation of mine, and he added (paraphrase), "they can't get the identity and meaning they want without giving up liberalism and universalism, but having an identity is the only way they can get a society which isn't antagonistic toward it."

The idea that man can go it alone is a perversion of the flawed libertarian belief that the smallest unit of society is the individual. Both libertarians and Skeptics ignore that humans are fundamentally interdependent, with countless relationships—laws, customs, family connections etc.—binding us. A society of atomized, disconnected individuals is no society at all. The smallest unit of society is not the individual, but the relationship between two individuals. What is a society but the sum total of interactions? A person on their own amounts to nothing and has no one to enjoy what he can accomplish with

Identity Politics is simply an anthropological phenomenon. No way to stop it or fix it. Sargon has no solution to its existence. No way to reconcile it with a broader vision of society. Just admonishing it for not conforming to his hyperindividualist view of humanity.

Identity politics defines itself in relation to whites ("the oppressors") and thus is parasitical on or antagonistic toward white society.

White identity politics, on the other hand, is not parasitical on non-whites, as most of its alleged practitioners just want the right to be left alone.



You make the same mistake which crippled new atheism and turned half of it into an SJW shitshow: you have no plan for the identitarian impulses of people, just as they had no plan for the religious impulses of people. So New Atheism was blindsided by the realization that many used their progressive politics as an article of faith and really only participated in Atheism as a vanguard against the Political Right.

You can say these things are irrational and must be resisted all you want but they haven't faded yet and always reassert themselves in politics. Particularly as they both feed on and contribute to political polarization, politics becomes personal and is mixed with these personal feelings

Moreover the fact is that Identitarianism is powerful, so to abstain from it when everyone else has decided in favor of it is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. And the contrary position to this is merely pointing out that IP isn't "pure rationality" and that politics would be better without it. A beautiful sentiment, but very naive and very unoriginal. Almost everyone on the altright thought the same at one point and has had such statements thrown at them constantly without deterring their observation that it isn't working out that way.

The problem with a deracinated meritocratic ideal is that people don't actually agree on objective truth within groups, much less between them.

And the pretense that individualism conquers all is just your subjective feeling
http://archive.is/BBAYx

Best illustration of their unearned arrogance:

Contrary to Sargon's pronouncement that "nobody has made correct predictions" the AltRight predicted Trump down to his path to victory and even using original data of our own rather than blindly trusting polls or rejecting polls outright. Because we like data whereas your pronouncements do seem to be based more on your ability to divine the mood in the air. Another reason why I think calling yourselves rationalists or skeptics is just self-congratulatory. The point being that you people esteem yourselves too highly with this pretense that you're wiser than us (as you lose basically every debate with someone of appropriate stature)

I've never seen any of you address altright claims as they actually exist. It's always something extremely shallow followed by an extremely shallow response that one should expect an altrighter to have heard (what about poverty, single motherhood, etc)

And you guys police your own when they say something too right wing. Lauren Southern saying being a slut is bad, ChrisRayGun repeating half the White Genocide argument. An impressive amount of fear really. Reminds me of Tucker. http://archive.is/35Mtv
http://archive.is/JxhjZ
 And I do notice this goes hand in hand with the usual dismissal of placing yourselves at the center of the horseshoe as a fallacy of moderation. Anyone outside of you is crazy and really the same. Not very rational really... Laci Green does the same by the way: presenting herself as the moderate voice.

http://archive.is/pXE2e
http://archive.is/byVlS
http://archive.is/iRyqJ
http://archive.is/jUdrq

You guys are also trendy and partisan to the point of being empty. hence why you didnt report on the iconoclasm with confederate statues or Spencer's victory at Auburn or Stormer's lawsuit. All pose a big threat to your values, especially the last two being about free speech

The pretense of calling yourselves shitlords or skeptics is just laughable when everything you believe is just warmed over cuckservatism.
And the unoriginality of the memes

This being the only original one
http://archive.is/hoWTN

Liberalism is actually an extremely callow ideology, no better word exists to describe its issues. It says a lot about a little and has a naive view of human nature which prevents liberalism from being attained or retained by a strict neutral adherence to liberalism  alone. As Raspail noted so well in his prophetic Camp of the Saints, liberalism cannot defend itself very well. It's too humanistic so it will always give charity to those who seek to exploit it.

Or as a white nationalist thinker once put it "the individualist's game blinds them to collectivist cheats"

And man's innate desire for collectivism when it suits him is something liberals have absolutely no answer for.

I suppose some elaboration may be in order. Well a fun example is when you realize that Ben Shapiro has advocated the exact same kind of peaceful redistribution of Arabs in Israel that Richard Spencer advocates for non-whites in America. And both use the post-war periods of Europe as an example of how to do it relatively humanely.

But Shapiro pretends to be a classically liberal dove when it suits him. And this fools people. Well, fools other liberals.

Another example of how liberalism is ill-equipped is with the issues of demographics. Now many liberals do say they oppose mass immigration but ultimately they oppose it fecklessly and with mealy-mouthed objections about culture which they could never properly define because they cannot be properly defined. It's hardly a robust opposition so the more intense open borders types hold an advantage there and reap all the rewards from said policy.

Another thing classical liberals talk about is the need for assimilation, which again they never define nor explain how to achieve without simply assuming their own conclusion that it will all work out. Because assimilation and the lack of it pose huge problems for liberalism so classical liberals have to pretend it isnt really a problem.

'Tis a callow ideology

Sargon, I think though I lack proof, is trying to gatekeep the altright since MillennialWoes. He keeps avoiding news involving us despite it actually being important (Spencer at Auburn for instance or the Confederate statues).

At least Destiny actually spoke to Ryan Faulk before try to pretend he doesnt exist.

And Jeff chickened out completely.

http://archive.is/6X1Kx
http://archive.is/6X1Kx

http://archive.is/QQOOS