Bleating about how people should just so no to collectivism and identity politics like a hectoring psa is not an argument. It's a highly reductive exercise. Basically complaining that collectivism isnt individualism, not arguing for individualism or arguing against the arguments that we need collectivism to defend ourselves. Without offering an alternative to identity politics or a solution to non-white identity politics, his appeals at empty. The argument is that collectivism is a necessary evil and that the mainstream wisdom on race is seriously lacking, so it Mus be considered as the powerful variable ittruly is. Neither at debates he cat ks willing to have. In light light this, what he actually does is little more than a smear. A guy living in 95% white Swindon arguing the concerns of people without that privilege who endure a much more divers polity are unfounded without any serious debate. Just another snob, and another parallel with cuckservatives
 
Clearly, Sargon's (professed) views and opinions don't match up with how people behave. Whites come the closest. http://archive.is/R3xGi
 
 
I guess he is trying to say collectivist ideologies always resort innultraviolence. Okay. I w/o say individualist strategies always end in groups being out-competed and destroyed. Maybe collectivist strategies always end in ultraviolence because they arise under threat? Besides, if that was his concern, and in light of him lacking an argument then he should not try to polarize the collectivists further but instead guide them.
 
He partakes in a well poisoning exercise about how he represents the enlightenement (except the scientific racism and anti-semitism naturally) and everyone else is just an irrational creature for not buying into hyperindividualism. It's generally a dishonest narrative using vertical slices of behavior to debate ideas. Moreover, none of it is a justification for the validity of his beliefs.
 
The irony. I can't think of a single time Sargon has used an empirical argument against the alt-right. It's always been this emotional preference for individualism, which he confuses for a valid view of human nature. Which makes his narrative that everyone else is just emotional quite laughable. All he has is pretending his preferences are universal and insisting that therefore all competing views should be discounted.
 
In fact, his go-to argument used to be insisting statistical data is useless because it doesn't tell you about the individual. So any conclusions are null. Despite this being the same argument of last resort feminists use, none of his fans seemed to catch on to how stupid this was. It was feels over reals.
 
He wants to just be a demagogue regurgitating stale talking points about how stupid racial collectivism is, when we've essentially won the argument about the importance of race in a descriptive sense at this point already, which further undermines his pretense of rationality. Now even former deniers of genetic racial differences pay lip service to accepting them, like SomeBlackGuy, just to avoid the debate. Others like Jeff Holiday choose to lie and say race realism is genetic determinism in order to avoid looking like he walked anything back.
 
Oh and oscillating between accepting race realism and parroting common strawmans about how race realists are genetic determinists. That way he can avoid debating the subject while still appearing to not accept it.
He's a pseudointellectual. He reads some high sounding BS in a book and adopts it as fact. I only watched a couple of minutes but he was calling the race concept "racial subjectivity" and dismissing its supporters as irrational. That's garbage and race is a perfectly valid predictive concept.
 
And scurrying away from debating people who would be too challenging. Like Andrew Joyce.
 
Sargon knows hyperindividualism just isnt how humans operate (otherwise he'd not have to bother with ebil nazis and sjws) and he cant actually muster any empirical defense of his ideas. So all he can do is pretend everyone else is irrational for not agreeing with his own assumptions about humanity.
 
Someone else pointed out, and is right, that Sargon rarely makes an empirical argument against white identitarianism. Just a knee jerk reaction based on his emotional preference for hyperindividualism. Which is trite.
 
Honestly, the romanticism described by Peikoff reminds me a lot of you Sargon. Hence why you,re using Peikoff to 'infer from critique' which is always self-serving in my opinion.
Also you hold fast to a plainly absurd view of human nature but couch it in some alleged adherence to the Enlightenment. But as Distributist would say, no enlightenment thinker actually agreed with this hyperindividualism. They just knew it was slippery to argue against and made good propaganda
 
Also, man isnt a rational actor. Nor a pure individualist. Romantic and collectivist notions therefore are something society has to deal with imo
 
you clearly don't understand Radical Enlightened Classical Liberal Skepticism. Race has no bearing on a person's ideology. Biology must be conceptually isolated, or else you are wrong and evil. What, Sargon smugly reading a book denouncing men written by a feminist? Why would he cite such a biased source?
 
I never understood this meme, that's just a description of any political movement.
Yeah. That's every horseshoe theory argument ever.
 
You're both collectivists!
Yeah, individualists are a group too.
 
You both give moral sanction to violence!
You men like enforcing laws? What an extremist position.
 
You both claim to be victims!
Kind of like how you claim that we're fucking up your colleges and video games?
 
http://archive.is/rwQMR