The EU debate- Can't barrage the Farage

St. Peters honey porter?

And he still cannot see…

...

Hahah fucking what

That's enough shilling for you Chaim, why don't you fuck off back to Israel?

It's the same fucking shit fam

...

wew

Someone (not me obviously) should whip up one of those sweating man faced with a contradiction memes

wew

Racists can't appreciate EU membership.

Nice to see lefty/pol/ getting to the real meat of the issue with character attacks. Why even pretend you're any better than any other section of the left.

obvious shoop

I can't see it being all bad fam, at least you could actually effect policy decisions at national level which is exactly what the EU is designed to prevent.
it might edgcelerationism but Left movements often thrive where deeply rooted conservative elites block aspirations for reform

wew

You realise a Holla Forumsack started this thread, right?

The bigger the scale, the harder it is to implement true democracy (as in direct democracy, not representative "democracy"). We should organize at a regional/communal level, so let's leave the EU and the nation state as well.

We're in the middle of a national referendum where he's appearing in the major televised debates, and UKIP just won its first seats in the Welsh elections held literally this month.

This is like asking if Marine Le Pen still exists in France and expecting not to sound like a complete idiot.

I'd like to know how you have such an insight into a man you've never met that you can tell his affinity with alcohol and English culture is "put on".

I had no idea wearing tweet and drinking ale was something exclusive to the working class.
Shows how much contempt you champaign socialists have to the English though doesn't it?

Nobody thinks wearing tweed is a working class thing. You cant even get your own shitposts right.

Explain to me how it is.

City traders aren't posh.
In the UK we have a thing called aristocracy.
The House of Commons is a degenerate shouting match of hooting and wailing because the people that sit in it are supposed to be commoners, regardless of how much money they make.

youtube.com/watch?v=gP8HrLhA9hc>>687912

youtube.com/watch?v=ZcmIHT6J0wc
He addresses it in this interview.

That's a GOOD thing! The EU means an end to nationalism and the start of global solidarity.

If leaving the EU was such a good idea, why is it only far-right parties like UKIP, the Conservatives and a few Blairites that want to?

We have that in the US too, we just stay away from politics and MSM in case the plebs get wise. New money families like the Bushs and the Clintons are ruining that though.

Erm, I'm pretty sure the Blairites have a hard on for the EU.

Why did I have a socialist flag?

Kate Hoey, Gisela Stuart and Frank Field aren't exactly the leftist side of Labour.

Well known Blairites like Tony Benn and George Galloway…

Blair himself is campaigning to stay in.

Benn is dead and Galloway hasn't been in Labour for almost two decades. Educate yourself you stupid right-winger.

leftypol in one sentence

Farage is based, though I wish he was more of a leftist than a libertarian shill.

Time and time again he was proven right, Labor should align with Ukip and stop the pro-EU rhetoric. The EU is a sinking ship the sooner leftists realize it the better, then no votes will go to far right wingers.

Labor is for commie feminist degenerates. If UKIP was more leftist than they would lose the respect of their voters.

...

Fuck off Holla Forums.

wew

You are wrong, Labor is Chimera of different things, Marxists, Social democrats, feminists and Blairite neoliberals.

Corbyn is taking out the trash and realigning the party towards the hard left. But it's a pity he cannot see how the EU is completely anti-antithetical to any real leftist economic policies. He is of course afraid of an internal coup, but what can he do?

This isn't your board pinko. It's ours.

Maybe, just maybe, the genuinely leftist leader of Britain's largest left-wing party knows a bit more about whether the EU is a good or bad thing for the left than some guy on an imageboard.

Sounds like what I said.

The EU is practically Soviet Union 2.0, it's anti-racist and anti-outside trade.

So shallow.

You are retard, why do you think they are shipping in all those migrants and refugees in western Europe? They want slaves to make them products to sell to China and Asia.

lol

Because an ethnically homogenous population is a population that can have a strong sense of nationality, which is to the disadvantage of the EU. If they were so concerned with making money with China then why are their tariffs hurting imports? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Neat repeating digits

I'm not the person you're replying to.
But I am going to throw in the idea that people are mostly either apathetic or made uncomfortable by the migrants, even if they haven't encountered any.

The right has been playing on the news to make nationalist policies look necessary and "all that can be done". Labour on the other hand hasn't been doing anything to allay fears, no matter how irrational they may be.

There is also the aspect of migrants being simply an easier source of exploitable labour, for whom nobody will speak for.

I think one of the most anti-racist and anti-xenophobic and leftist policies that a country can take at the moment is limiting the number of migrants.

But with regard to the EU, I would like to work in another EU country. It's a shame I won't be able to if Leave wins.

You are a paronoid schizo, do you think anyone in Europe gives a fuck about homogeneity anymore? German has millions of Italians, Greeks, Turks, Jews, and Poles.

The only thing those in power care about, is to keep getting elected, Merkel has continuously won elections due to the growth rate and low deficit. The politicians in Germany are in essence servants of the industrialists and Frankfurt bankers, much like in Britain they are servants of the City.

The high tariffs of Europe actually benefit them, since Europe is making far more high end products than China. Should Europe start selling cheap low end products that China doesn't even need, it's over.

wsj.com/articles/wto-countries-clinch-deal-to-end-tariffs-on-many-high-tech-goods-1437710461

Look at who is behind the "tear down tarrifs" narrative, the same people who are serving us TTIP, namely bankers.

Fuck 'true' democracy, I want global communism. We need a global system to implement that, not some petty tribalist communities.

...

The UK loses it's welfare state and becomes a vassal to the City of London

The UK keeps importing low earning migrants and does neoliberal reforms to keep whatever little welfare is left, while the EU keeps fucking them on trade.

It's a lose/lose situation, those who buy into such false dilemmas are in for disappointment.

but at least with leave the corrupt EU has a chance of being destroyed faster, wouldn't you want that?

So you're going to leave your country for a better paycheck? Coward.

If they care about a strong future for their nations then yes, which is why you're seeing the rise of a new right wing in Europe. It's fucking glorious.

And not making any money on them? Switzerland companies make hundreds of times more than EU countries because it doesn't have tariffs. Euroskeptic parties want to lift those tariffs so local companies can compete in the global market again. You have no idea how this works, do you?

Are you seriously comparing the whole of the EU, with Switzerland a tiny nation of mountain Jew bankers? What the fuck does Switzerland produce anyway?

FUCK OFF Holla Forums

Have you met a Swiss person, they are literally more greedy than Jews.

google.com/search?q=switzerland companies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Switzerland is a model for an economically successful post-EU europe and the majority of Euroskeptic parties understand this, including Farage. Besides, white people are watching their countries overrun by shitskin hordes and are waking up real quick.

this board is ours faggot

Everyone should watch this movie

youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0

...

Swiss are either German, French or Italian. And they have always accepted refugees also. This year they are spending roughly 2.4CHF on Syrian immigrants.

I bet that will be their downfall too.

Bullshit. The Swiss see what a mess Schengen - or the EUs take on the crisis general is and strongly oppose it. They're generally for strong border laws and always have been. Where the fuck have you been lately to claim that.

It would have been their downfall for fucking decades then, retard. I'm Swiss and the earliest immigrants came after the Italian wars in North Africa and the French wars in Algeria. Swiss immigration policy is great too as it is very authoritarian, and we don't have liberal "tolerance" principles, even though there are a few mosques in most of the larger cities they cause zero problems.

Yes, which isn't contradictory to what I said. That they nonetheless accept them, within their capacity. My next post should tell you they are not liberal with this, and do it in an organized way and engage the military for the logistics of getting in the immigrants, papers checked and all.

Good. That's whats stopping you from having a shitty country.

For now.

I can smell pinko faggots in here.

Mosques have been here since the fucking early '60s, stormcuck. That's even earlier than some other western European countries.

But the numbers have not yet grown as they have in other western european countries pinko

HEIL HEIL HEIL HEIL HARAGE

This is now a dubs checking thread unless you don't come back to the original theme.

Germaniboo detected lmao

You say that like it's something to be proud about. It's ironic that you call me a cuck and you're defending the presence of mudslimes in your country that love fucking white women. Let enough of them in your country and one day you will wake up and realize that you're a stranger in the place you grew up in. Some of us have already experienced that and wouldn't wish it on anyone.

oi m8 what you have to say against Germans hm? I'm German you know.

...

checked

...

Like I said because Switzerland manages it well.

You're projecting again m8. I leave people to their pure ideology and that's it, as long as it doesn't bother me.

Have you ever thought that, maybe, you know, not everyone is as obsessed as you with with the mental image of Arabs fucking the women that you got friendzoned by?

And yes, you're a cuck, because you'd rather be led for a spooky cause like muh national/racial purity yourself while getting robbed of your own integrity. You crave domination and an ulterior cause in life because you lack one yourself.

Man, why fuck up a perfectly good poster with something as awkward as "the rest must go!"
It's redundant and "Britain is Ours" on its own would have been more powerful.

...

So you'll let foreigners change your country from the inside out because it doesn't personally affect you? Wait long enough and you won't just be bothered, you will be living in a nightmare.

If faggots like you are allowed a say then it won't just be an image, it will be reality. It's about self-respect, which you don't seem to have yet.

And don't talk about integrity while belittling your sense of national and ethnic identity at the same time. You have no integrity, no morals, no values. You are the tool of the elite. I'm their enemy.

The rest must indeed go. Removing kebab is essential to a strong England.

Why do right-wingers constantly talk about white women being fucked by arabs?

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Immigrants

England is a French colony though

My point was not that I disagreed with the message, merely that it was poorly made propaganda.
It's redundant.
"Britain is Ours" already implies all the rest. Keep it simple, or at least have some kind of Stanza or rhyme going.

lel

youtube.com/watch?v=57J_IFzFmYk

I like it because it's threatening towards kebabs.

As an anglo-norman I find this highly amusing.

I'm asking what's with the focus on cuckold and rape of white women? I'd personally care more about economical problems and so on, but for some reason "le cucks le bulls" is always brought first

The statistics of increase in rape due to increased immigration didn't answer your question?

So is leaving it out. Often times, less is more.
But perhaps I shouldn't be giving my political opposition advice on how to make proper propaganda.

Shit changes all the time. I don't fucking care, once again, when it doesn't affect me. Protip: it doesn't, and never has. Kebabs praying in their mosques is the last of my worries under modern global capitalism. I have no inherent affiliation with everyone born and raised on the specific plot of land now known as Switzerland, because I'm not spooked. I'm more worried about neoliberalism trashing down my quality of life by repealing all the social democratic things I've benefitted from as a working class individual, like a decent wage, affordable cost of living, labor rights and socialized medicine, which even though we're not in the EU, is starting to decay at the hands of corporate shills, and on the other side, the tradcucks that think putting in white(tm) politicians in place will totally be in our interest (as if most of them already aren't) are the second threat that luckily isn't taking off in Switzerland at all. I'm not in favor of immigration at all; ideally, people ought to stay where they are and work things out, but they can't so I don't mind them coming over here as long as they behave decently (they do).

Projection. Holla Forumscucks are closet betas with a cuckold fetish.

I understand the problem and I agree in many regards with anti-immigrants, but why is "they fuck womyn" always brought before "they are ruining the economy"? Every single time the issue is raised on chans, it always starts with the discussion of cuckold instead of finances, which makes it even funnier, because chans have a notable population of virgins and basement dwellers who will never have sex, so the rapes have no effect on them personally.

That's a very close-minded way of looking at it.

Yes you do, even if your too brainwashed to realize it yet.

What the fuck do you think more mudslimes are going to do? Respect your standards of living and assimilate? Fuck no, they will and are presently trashing the whole damn continent. Man up for once in your life.

Is that all you think we want? It's about having a country that works together, and you don't have that with ethnic diversity, you have factions that will sprout out of nowhere. Nobody is just going to forget about their culture and heritage because of your pseudo-intellectual bullshit, they're going to fight for their right to have a culture and heritage and when you have an ethnically diverse population doing that you'll get a shitstorm like the one thats presently happening.

Tell that to the victims of the Paris attacks or the thousands of rape victims. You narrow-minded tool of the establishment.

It's both at the same time. Though rape by foreigners hits home pretty hard don't you think? Especially when you've been told of all the benefits of diversity.

...

you saying I'm projecting is actually you projecting

discuss

Not really,
I never cared about "benefits of diversity", especially since I see immigration as a reserve army of capital. I'm not an economic liberal.

Sounds interesting, tell me more.
who said that?

No, no one cares about the increased rape brought by increased immigration. Nice defense you have there.

Remind what the EU motto is again. Strength in diversity is it?

...

No it isn't. I have my self-interest and that's it. My self-interest isn't your self-interest. Remain cucked to your spooks if you like; you're just as deep into ideology as kebabs.

wew lad.

Yes, and they have for almost 6 decades now.

Muh big Other.

[class collaboration useful idiotism intensifies]

You don't have it either way in an inherently exploitative and hierarchical system like capitalism.

People always have, and already have. Because of capitalism and the free market, actually; whatever sells works. You want to LARP as your specific, ideal spooks tho.

People only care if they're told to. There is no inherent tendency to believe in spooks; it's all pure ideology.

If even 5% of Muslims, immigrant or resident, all did those things, I'd look at the situation differently. But the fact of the matter is that I'm not bothered by kebabs at all and they don't affect me in any tangible way. Stay spooked tho.

Dear God this thread is spooked beyond repair. Literally Holla Forums-pozzed by white boiz terrified by the scary brown men behind the kebab counter.

Also,

kek

I do see the problem with increase of rapes, it's simply not what I care about first and foremost. Feel free to call me short-sighted egoist, because I see economcs(which IMHO affect me more on personal level) as more important.
EU should burn tbh

wat

Saudi Arabia refuses to take in immigrants, despite being the wealthiest nation in the middle east that also happens to be directly funding ISIS as well as counter-insurgent groups against Syria. Hmm…

Same as Saudi Arabia.

Poor as shit countries, that do in fact take some refugees.

Of course they're gonna pick the best place to live, especially since Christian conservative Angela Merkel invited them over herself with an open door.

Please tell me more though. Got any more funny memes?

"I was in Handsworth recently in the middle of Birmingham. Handsworth is 99.7% non-White. There are no Whites left in Handsworth. They’ve left. They’ve vacated these inner Birmingham areas! Christmas isn’t celebrated in Handsworth; it’s called Winterville, and all of the ceremonies for the Hindu religion, for the Sikh religion, for the Muslim religion, even the African New Year is celebrated, but Christmas is not. That’s because we’ve vacated the area. We’ve left it."

You are the fucking retard.

The previous poster was comparing the ENTIRE EU economy vs Switzerland .

Witch produces chocolates and watches and depends 90% on their banks for their national income. Fuck you are stupid.

The most used argument by immigrant apologists, that they "do the jobs we don't". The majority of them that come to Germany or Britain or Sweden are even analphabets in their own language. And you expect them to learn your language and be a functioning member of society? Economics balance themselves out only if your country consists out of natives. Otherwise these poor as fuck migrants will steal from the state because the state is forced to feed them, and then everyone suffers.

the EU is not a country. And on the subject of economic growth, every continent has grown economically - except Europe.

No, it was a valid point. Those companies are successful because of a lack of tariffs, which is peculiar to Switzerland.

...

Sounds interesting, but I don't fully trust "eyewitness accounts", I've been bamboozled enough times now by them. Got any demographic statistics?

This is literally an argument of economic liberal shitter, stop projecting.

The EU has common trade laws, because of the global competition, and how the fuck do you think there is going to be any growth without investments and local spending? Why do you think they are cutting welfare everywhere in Europe, because thy want to make it more competitive while at the same time surrendering our economies to trade cartel mafias that are pushing TTIP. There will never be growth for you and me as long as the economy is free and market speculation runs rampart, just for the capitalists pockets.

Also

Another day in the mind of the schizo conservative.

rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/#98a215a7cf9d

Immigration destroys a country from within. You erode it's people and it falls apart. What do you think happened to Rome?

...

thefreelibrary.com/How immigration destroyed Rome. Oxford historian Peter Heather has...-a0141907543

The western part of Roman empire has been eroding since crisis of the second century, long before le barbarian migrations, blaming germanic cumskins is an oversimplification.

Fuck, it was to

third*

you're the autist m8 first of all

secondly immigration wás one of the issues. unchecked immigration and invasion led to the gradual dismantling of the empire, they had a policy to give fresh bread and water to everyone and with time it got abused by everyone who was too lazy to do work, so after all the bread was gone and the farmers killed - you get the idea.

It probably gets them off.

It's a self-respect kind of thing. You probably wouldn't understand.

Not him but
Why was it unchecked? Because the western part of the empire was already deteriorating. There was no way to control it the borders, especially since the times Tetrarchy was abolished and the central authority was much further in comparison with the Trier, capital of the western Caesar.
Also Romans did oppose germanics, just ask visigoths while they were in Thrace. The west was simply half-dead at that point and the western emperors had to accept whatever barbarians were doing post factum.

Of course they did. They had walls and forts that worked just fine. The problem was that they thought it was a smart idea to assimilate germans into their military. Assimilation doesn't work.

Ouch

Isn't it a reason to not let people from under-evolved countries inside as a whole? Either you have human garbage or you have decent workers who however will harm their own state by not helping it out instead.

Just brainstorming.

So if something horrific happened to a family member of yours that you never met, you wouldn't care?

...

...

...

Not at the the end of 4th century, the pics and the caledonians didn't have much problems with storming the Hadrian's wall around that time for example. And for the clarity sake, that limes map is from the early 2nd century

Implying they could actively prevent people from crossing the rhine with their disasterous state of economy, politics, army and pretty much fucking everything. Everything that made Rome not shit was in the east, the western part was always an undeveloped backwards shithole.

le borders are just spooks meme, yes I heard that one before. Let's see how much of a spook a bullet from the guards standing on top of a fence is.

Family member probably, but it's different scale. In same way we could as well ask if you wouldn't care if a family member of yours that you never met was drowning in the sea :^)

Been a while since I've seen a 4chon meme.

Absolutely, that's how the jews think and that's how white people should think.

I thought we were arguing about rome? Because you know, the state of the west post 395 was so fucking shit the barbarians faced minimal problems with getting in. It's easy to notice the scale of western decay since we had properly functioning empire in the east, which could actually stop the barbarian flow

Oh about Rome? Yes you are right. I reacted somewhat aggressive and I apologize.

It's called an analogy.

So why should I care if my family member I've never met was being raped but I shouldn't care if he was drowning? It's both or neither imo.

I said you should care if your family member was drowning. I don't care if shitskins are drowning to get to Europe because they don't give a fuck about my people, only them and theirs. If white people were doing something like that I would care.

lol that's why capitalism has been around for so long, your clearly not interested in giving up your property let alone your life for a revolution

I don't really care about drowning durka I've never met, so why I should care about le aryan woman form cologne I've never met?

because the possibility of said woman to be your sister or daughter next time is not low.

Yeah well with 7 billions people and the impossibility to compromise between nations, good luck with that. The 21st century socialism will be local.

I think I would care, because I would prefer that this horrible thing didn't happen (assuming he/she didn't deserve it, inb4 "hurr durr what if it was Hitler" wacky scenarios). Even for a non-family member, but I would care out of empathy, not out of self-respect, or else it wouldn't be called "self"-respect.

apparently deleted

Not really fam.

I quoted a wrong person

Because without her and the rest of the white population you would live in a society that doesn't speak a language you can understand, have cultural norms you can relate to, or even laws you know the punishments for. Common values are essential to a working society.

Do you have empathy for muslim immigrants who are convicted of rape charges?

Yes really. It's not a problem for cologne only, it affects all of Europe by now. Sweden is called the rape capital. Isn't that setting you off? How can you be this careless about what's going on around you? You'll realize one day that everything around you has changed, by the time it will be too late. Keep in mind what you're seeing and hearing right now are just the flowers, the berries will come soon.

You definitely won't get a girlfriend then either, that's for sure.

No, you need to read my post again :
Rapists obviously deserve to be prosecuted.

I genuinely can't understand what you're trying to get at. If you can't speak the language or know the laws of the country your immigrating to you are definitely going to cause major problems for everybody. Can you wrap your head around that?

Lel, my country is so poor refugees escape from it

So are you implying it's impossible for the next gens of those brownies to assimilate under any regards? Or that cultural norms and values of given populations are fixed? Not that I like reactionary stances of arabs. In fact I think they should be weeded out as well

Many of the people who are drowning trying to get here are also getting convicted of rape.

Have you ever heard of sharia zones in the UK? That is the failure of immigrants to assimilate. The more that come over the less inclined they will feel to do so, they will just make the country their own. That is colonization and that's what the middle east is doing to europe.

There are blocks in British cities that don't speak English completely or only very limited. That's not even the point. You see people that demand other cultures to assimilate to them and not the other way around. Yes, English is dying out in English speaking countries. Yes, criminality is rising because of migration. Yes the housing prizes grow because there are more people arriving and it won't stop. Britain is fucking overcrowded. I don't understand why I wouldn't be having a problem with all that or why you think migrants are not to blame for all that. And yes I know the politicians are the main fuck-ups but that doesn't make migrants less damaging.

If you don't have consistent norms then you don't have a functioning society. That's whats happening in the west. youtube.com/watch?v=-4S0gHlKiho

You won't be able to do shit about it when they are the majority, they will force you to assimilate to their norms or they will kill you.

uh

Looking at it from above it doesn't seem like they are very interested in it. Why would you make it bad for everyone just for a couple of arabs to live here for a couple diversity points? They suffer, we suffer, the state wastes money.

I'd say it's because there's no active force that ensures weeding out of the reactionary traditions in their cases, why the liberals don't do this is beyond me

What's Holla Forums's stance on pics like this?

Yes, but I don't believe far-right myths.

It started with you questioning why would you care about women being raped by migrants. I tell you why. Because it's just a part o the big problem which affects you in more than one aspect - in this case migrant rapes.

You mean there's no chance they'll start changing into or something?

?

...

Not something to be aiming at. She still has a rag around her head first of all.

ALRIGHT BACK TO FARAGEPOSTING I GUESS THIS THREAD GOT COMPLETELY DERAILED

Rome fell long before the barbars decided to move in. They moved in PRECISELY because Rome was basically dead at that point anyway.

Educate myself about what? Tony Benn was consistently opposed to EU membership only two years ago when he was alive, and he certainly wasn't a Blairite and rather was revered by the left in the Labour party.

How does your view stand that "the EU is good because only UKIP and right wing Tories oppose it"?

It wasn't the barbarians I was talking about. Sure, they came later to settle there after Rome fell. The people who just used Rome's free food and water without returning anything were one of the things at fault for the collapse.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols

I wish it was a myth.

No, not overnight. The only reason the west is like that is because of our economic success and advanced technology.

No, Rome fell because of immigration and economic success, same reason the west is shit right now. History is cyclical like that.

Wrong.

can't argue with that logic

What a compelling argument.

Also Rome didn't exterminate the populations of Gaul, Spain, and it's other territories and replace them with Roman citizens. It just gave citizenship willy nilly, kind of like what liberals want to do with the millions of wetbacks who jumped the fence. The same reason colonization didn't work out for England in India or France in Algeria, they should have destroyed the local populations, but instead those populations eventually rebelled because they couldn't relate to Rome. Multiculturalism doesn't work, and this is what the EU is learning the hard way.

But ultimately it is likely. Too bad the liberal parts of establilishment promote the idea of retaining the backward values by those in the lower classes.

In 212, centuries after the conquest of those places. Before that it was actively promoting colonisation and cultural assimilation.

Most people in lower classes are conservative, so I would say they are just the opposite of backwards. What's backwards is the views that are created due to material abundance created by an excessively materialistic view which leads to moral degeneracy. This needs to be stopped through creating strong national identity and ethnic homogeneity, as well as colonization of non-white lands, this time just gas the fuck out of them while colonizing outer space as well.

Which was a huge mistake.

You can colonize without promoting assimilation. You just kill the local population and replace them with Roman citizens, veterans who have served 5-year terms for example. Rome was as naive as the EU or the US is.

poal.me/vhrbwe
poal.me/vhrbwe
poal.me/vhrbwe
poal.me/vhrbwe
poal.me/vhrbwe

Kind of, but then Carcalla badly needed money, and citizens were more properly taxed.
Are you autistic? How are you going to kill the people on such scale, especially if they evacuate to the forest and mountains?
The large chunk of the army were actually non-romans who wanted a citizenship, I really doubt Rome would be able to field such armies after getting rid of so many potential soldiers

You could at least be Stras.serist, they are not as retarded

...

Zyklon-B works pretty well from what I heard.

Which was a huge mistake.

Which is why Rome shouldn't have expanded so quickly as it did. Expansion should have been slower.

what the fuck are you talking about

Why do you think that people who have money are any less deserving of it than those who don't have it?

The only reason that would happen is if it was unsuccessful, or your country was full of hippies. Germans never complained about their armies invading other countries because they understood that there were obvious benefits to gaining that land, that is the principle behind lebensraum. Hitler would not have been so popular if people thought he wasn't going to give them more land.

Are you actually telling me romans should've built gas chambers
Arguable, in case of non-romans the conscription was voluntary, so only those willing to assimilate were joining.
Or they could be raped by mutlicultural empires like Parthians, who didn't care about melanin levels of their subjects as long as they were giving money to the Shah :^)

lol I'm saying that genocide is more effective than assimilation.

That's completely besides the point. Non-romans were doing it for material benefits, they had no loyalty to Romans, and didn't give a fuck what happened to it's citizens.

Yeah, remind me what happened to the Parthians again.

Even in case of more culturally advanced civs, like greeks or egyptians for Romans?
They were indeed receiving land and after serving in the army, but they were also properly taxed. If you didn't want get taxed, you wouldn't simply join the army
Replaced by equally multicultural Sassanids

Those advancements only happened because of a kind of congruence of their culture which would and was disturbed by their assimilation with Romans. Rome would have been better off without those advancements if they didn't have the means to repeat them independently. It boils down to the priority of ethnic homogeneity, without which you have massive instability, the like of which Rome saw by the time it had significantly expanded.

Still not the point. They still didn't give a fuck about Romans or their culture.

And remind me who replaced them? Another multicultural empire founded by invading arabs, and so on and so forth. Multiculturalism doesn't work, people fight each other for perks and cultural recognition. Empires are stable for as long as they have homogenous populations, not hard to process.

No. I want to experience life elsewhere. Even if I were going elsewhere for a higher paycheck, how does that make me a coward?
Why should I feel any debt to "my country"?

I didn't choose it. It's a forced relationship that I did not agree to, nor do I see any benefit in it. I couldn't care less about my country; clinging to identity leads only to suffering.

If it was forced you wouldn't be able to leave.

I agree, nevertheless you cannot escape having an identity. Your memories of the past, your aspirations for the future all bring you back to a people and a home you may have had. Nothing is more pathetic than the life of a nomad who has no family or relations. You should go out and see the world, but never forget your origins.

How very edgy, Holla Forums is LARPing again

It's true. This board is our punching bag.

By forced I mean that it's not something I chose. I just don't take to the idea that I need to have something tying me to something which I don't think is so significant.
I don't want to have it part of my identity, and because I can choose my identity, I just won't include it.
It does not make sense to me to tie myself to the place I was born and raised. I can understand that others might want that because it makes them feel good, but I don't like it.

I appreciate people, not locations. And good people can be from anywhere. Family also isn't something one chooses, so I'd rather only consider family who I like to have that status. There's no reason why they should get a free pass because they share a minuscule amount more genetics than the next guy.

For a while I wanted to belong to another culture. To be of a different race, speak a different mother language etc. but now I just don't see the appeal. If I always think "I am //" etc. I'll take any attack on it as an attack on me.

I can understand having different opinions, or being fine with that kind of suffering, but I don't think it should be universal.

The life of an "identity nomad" is what I aspire to have. Nothing to tie me down, to make me suffer, to make me feel good or bad about who I am. Neither praise nor blame shakes me. Insults are nothingness.

I don't forget my origins, I just don't think they are important. It's less important to me than what I ate for breakfast two weeks ago.

Eh, I'd say hellenic culture and roman culture are congruent. Note that greece itself never rebelled and remained loyal in spite of crisis of third century et all.
How can you be sure that they didn't consider roman culture as surperior? After all, romanisation reached places as far as Londinium.
The collapse of Persian empires was largely a result of economic incoherence, not the ethic one. Sassanids experienced feudalisation and were in financial drain after final byzantine-sassanid war. But the ethicities in the empire didn't consider the Shah as enemy. We can give post-ephesus assyrians as an example, who were loyal to the sassanids despite different nationality

Y-yeah we control this board even though we don't really impede discussion much beyond the usual b8 comments.

Y-you should be very scared, we make fun of you on Holla Forums read:torture chamber. Haha we're the true rebels, normie society won't accept us so we have to flee to a vietnamese cartoon website but you leftists are still a top 25 leftists a-am I sweating my fellow anglo?!

*top 25 board

You didn't choose to be born either. So you are forced to live, does that mean you should kill yourself? Think about that.

No you can't, you can't choose to be a nigger if you're white, you can't choose to be a woman if you're a man. You can improve your individual self, but you are not free to be whatever you want. There are obvious limitations to our freedom.

You don't appreciate locations? Then why leave for another location? I appreciate both, there is an inextricable relationship between the two. Through millions of years of evolution people are formed by their locations, cultures are largely formed by a reflection by people of the places around them, stories that are thousands of years old that describe locations that people still see.

That's awfully selfish. Maybe there are family members you like who haven't told you they feel this way about you.

>If I always think "I am //" etc. I'll take any attack on it as an attack on me.

That is a perfectly sensible thing to think. It is very much the case that if you don't think that way then people will in fact exploit your inability to have such an identity, in the same way that corporations do with multiculturalism, they encourage people to think about profit over culture, next thing you know we're living in Orwell's 1984.

That is wishful thinking and it will always disappoint you in the end. You will always be tied down by your mortality, by gravity, etc. You will always suffer for as long as you have a nervous system and aspirations. And without a sense of honor or shame you will easily be degraded and disrespected.

Not necessarily, romans adopted aspects of their culture as did the Etruscans. Their religion was fundamentally different as was their political system.

That is definitely not true at all. They rebelled repeatedly and were a constant source of irritation for the Senate.

Wouldn't matter, they still understood that they were a distinct identity that didn't belong, and they were right to think that.

Porky detected.

so is /furry/

Their cultures were similar enough to ensure loyalty even among hellenized middle-easterners, like hellenic jews or melkites in christian period of the empire.
Sorry for not being specific, they stopped rebelling after the vanquishment of last proper hellenic states(iirc Pontic kings were the last ones to lead an anti-roman rebellion). And later? Greeks retained their proper hellenic ethnic identity, but considered themselves romans(ie. roman citizens) until 19th century despite not being native citizens of Latium.
Yet, their descendants switched ethnicities without bigger problems and their further descendants speak bastardized latin to this day.

Porky detected.

If we can't choose how we relate to society, then it is society that should change.

If we have to choose between what kind of moron we want to be instead of not being one, civilization is doomed anyway.

I think you literally do not understand what honor or shame are.

No, there were rebellions in every part of the empire, especially by the jews. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish–Roman_wars

You don't 'switch' your ethnicity, you dilute it.

If you look at the nation-states that signed the Peace of Westphalia you can see that the differences between European people were always stronger than the unity which a bit of latinization of the language caused. The Germanic tribes formed modern Europe, Rome's multiculturalism was why it didn't last as long as it could have.

Why? Because of your irrational and selfish desire for freedom? Why shouldn't you change instead? Why is it that society should do things for you and not the other way around? There is a reciprocal relationship between you and everyone else, but that becomes meaningless when you start making demands without giving anything in return.

Sure? No one is advocating that you should be a moron? You could have worded that better.

You cannot understand honor or shame without a society around you, but without any honor or shame you will be even more easily manipulated than if you accept a society's standard without questioning it. I'm not saying you should have blind faith in your society, I'm just saying you are nothing without your society. You need your society to survive, to grow and to become a better person, and you will do that best in the one you are most familiar with.

No. The element here is reasonable choice. One can't really escape life without destroying oneself, which defeats the purpose of escape in the first place. One can escape most other possible things, though. Your country is only part of yourself if you let it be so. I don't see a reason to let it be so.

There is a difference between an identity and a description; we can separate, for example, the state of being male into male (desc) and male (id); a coherent sentence would be for example "You like My Little Pony? That's such a girly (id) thing to like." but an incoherent sentence is "Because you like My Little Pony, you aren't a man (desc)".

It's not about being someone. It's about identity; we certainly can choose which parts of our physical bodies or history we emphasise as what makes up "me".

Black (desc) is entirely different from Black (id). Black (id) entails participation in elements key to "black culture" whereas Black (desc) refers to the state of having certain ancestry and/or genetics.

Sorry, I mean that I appreciate people as part of my identity. The location is only a convenience; this is shown by the fact that I have no appreciation for my birthplace or where I was raised. Cultures are formed by the people around them, but there's no reason why we need to make culture about identity. I have appreciation for stories and art, but only so long as it is associated to individuals.

Another way of looking at it is that we can appreciate countries and culture for the people who happen to be there. I would go to another country just because the people there have made good use of their intellect, not culture.

If I can create a book in German in Germany (as a non-German (desc)), becoming part of German culture, why is what I create any different to what the average other German creates?

I don't think so; it can lead to a greater care of each person, regardless of limitations. This is a problem with companies, being driven by profit and nothing else. If you can change a company to care about culture, you can change it to care about people too. I'd rather protect people than culture.

True, but I can try to limit what affects my mind. Respect and disrespect mean less and less to me. I don't identify with countries or the opinions of people. It's a simple concept which is quite effective. There's a lot less mental baggage.

I already have a moral code, I don't need shame to dictate it for me. Shame does a lot of good in the world, it protects wholesome actions; but one doesn't need that protection if one already has some idea of how to behave in a wholesome way.

This post is meant for you:>>689235

FUCK:

Has Europe in general ever really given a shit about "homogeneity?" The rule seems to have generally been multi-ethnic empires from the time of Alexander the great pretty much until the 20th century.

Which is to destroy yourself . . .

Not necessarily. If you don't pay your taxes someone will come for you. The values you have, literally everything you have ever experienced is apart of your country and you can't just get amnesia and pretend you have no attachment to these things. Your country is more than just a plot of land, it's everything you've ever known.

No we can't. You can't pretend you don't have a dick or pretend you aren't of a certain ethnicity.

Maybe at the initial point of colonization, but over time location becomes much more than this. Location molds us as we mold it.

Culture is identity.

People naturally form cultures over time, just as we naturally form languages, music, stories, art, etc. People will always have culture, just as we will always have morals. It's what makes humanity so interesting.

Than you will easily become the plaything of other people. Say someone pushes into you or beats the shit out of you and you claim not to have any sense of self-respect, then what? You'll let people do what they want to you?

lol yeah, that's what the last two world wars were about and just about every war Europe has ever fucking had. What a retarded thing to say.

>No, there were rebellions in every part of the empire, especially by the jews. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish–Roman_wars
Out of three included wars the only instance of assimilated jews rising up was first revolt, in all other instances they remained loyal, just look at Hasmoneans,
kek, greeks didn't have qualms about honoring the emperors by 40 :^)

How so?

you 'aving a giggle?

753 BC - 1453 AD is a really fair amount of time

History started before 1789 you dummy

I mean, I get why you say that about WWII, but WWI? Really?

A kind of fake forced loyalty due to the destruction of the Temple and only after multiple rebellions.

Ethnicity is partially genetic, you don't just switch things you were born with, for that matter even that part that's not genetic isn't something you can just 'switch,' nor would anyone be inclined to do so. Ethnic blending or diluting causes an existential identity crisis that nobody would put on themselves. I feel bad for people who are mixed tbh.

Modern European nation-states were solidified by that treaty. You just learning this for the first time?

lol it wasn't multicultural for the majority of that time and I'm not referring to the Byzantine empire. Rome was multicutural from about 100 BCE till it's fall, and even then it was very slow and roman citizens colonized conquered lands making it less multicultural and more stable.

Do you really think leaving the EU will help the average Brit? Its just transferring power from one porky to another porky.

No one is denying that? Wtf does that year have to do with anything.

Don't butt in if you don't know what you're talking about beyond HURR ELITES MADE THEM DO IT. WWII was just an extension of WWI, they might as well be seen in a continuum.

It's the first necessary step, then we'll see

Economic growth that would be caused by leaving the EU would affect everyone. If anything most of the working class (especially fishermen who've had their ability to fish on the rivers outside their houses taken and given to other countries) has been especially hurt by EU tariffs and trade deals.

They mostly embraced teachings of Jesus, so I'd argue about their lack of loyalty, unless you're saying we should gas all christians
Of course it's harder to be considered a "swede" in case of negroid gentlemen, but I don't see why a czech couldn't become a german or gaul couldn't become a roman. Nationalities are in that regard very fluid, first americans were getting pissy about the irish and germans, now it'd strange to hear that irish-americans should fuck off back to their island.
You mean non-citizens, like other latinic tribes, were switching cultures :^)

...

No they didn't. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

You were just arguing for it, so you wouldn't be arguing at all at this point, you would be agreeing with me.

You must have down syndrome or something, I have no idea where you're going with this.

Czechs are actually partially german, and Austrians are pretty much totally german, which is why Hitler annexed them. Gauls were never roman, they were unsuccessfully colonized and they only Roman thing left is apart of the language and a theater here and an aqueduct there. Ethnicities simply take time to develop, it's not as 'fluid' as your average college professor would say it is.

Germans were protestants and have been here since before it was a country, but they were always segregated. For that matter Anglos are a germanic/celtic people so culturally and ethnically Irish and Germans aren't that different. The Irish who came over in the mid-19th century were catholic and this caused a shit ton of problems, fuckin' papists were never really accepted and Kennedy's Irish background hurt him in the elections.

Well first we're trying to kick out the beaners who jumped the fence, and stop the mudslimes from coming over. Though I disagree, if Americans had oppurtunities to colonize and grow we would be more accepting of the idea of kicking out anybody who isn't English, including the Scotch-Irish and the Scottish. You would be surprised how much Americans actually still care about this kind of stuff.

t. Anglo-norman Scotch-Irish American who can trace his lineage back over 1000 years

No, I meant citizens. I fail to see the joke your making so it must not be that funny.

...

And they'll end up hurt even more, because we aren't leaving the single market. Meaning we would actually by relinquishing control over our economy, by giving up our (admittedly sub-par) say on the laws and regulations governing the singlemarket.

...

You don't have any control whatsoever over EU laws. A brexit would bring an immense amount of freedom to Britain's trade with countries outside the EU.

Yes we do, in the bourgeois sense. We have MEPs who "represent" us in the European Parliament, and vote on laws - a large amount of those laws being the regulations of the EU single market (which we aren't leaving). If we leave the EU political union, we would be giving up that representation in the EU parliament, and hence would actually end up giving away our sovereignity.

No it wouldn't, because exiting the single market is not on the agenda.

that's not implied in that post

No, you don't. You even admit that you don't.

Yes it would, there is a market outside the EU, not that the EU would dare stop trading with Britain if it left the EU. Britain has the potential for much more economic trade without the EU.

It's called nuance.

You don't seem to understand what the single market actually is. Pro-tip: It isn't a free-trade zone.

It's called backpedaling.

No you don't seem to understand that the global market isn't an homogenous entity. There are multiple players who are gaining ground as the EU is in decline and losing business. Britain is simply trying to leave a sinking ship.

No it isn't.

This has nothing to do with the single market.
Are you going to even try to engage with my arguments or should I just stop bothering?

Yes it is, you admitted that your 'representation' is totally superficial and therefore nonexistent. You admit that Britain has no real say, which is why a Brexit would be preferable.

You don't seem to get it, the single market is not the only market. The single market is closed off like the Soviet Union was during the Cold War, it hurts all those involved and Britain would do better without membership. Non-EU european countries like Norway and Switzerland still trade with the EU anway, the EU would be stupid not to trade with them and the EU would be stupid not to trade with Britain even after a Brexit. Britain has everything to gain and nothing to lose with a Brexit.

The problem is that the British people are far more class-cucked than most people from mainland Europe. If the UK leaves, it will give the tories free reign to fuck over the proletariat as much as they like.

Remember that the UK has been the main supporter of TTIP in the EU.

Are you seriously implying that your vote in the general election gets you any more representation than your vote for your MEP?
If you're in a safe seat in the UK (which most people are), you don't get any representation either way.

So what happened to the hellenic jews if we have only non-hellenic ones around?
Mistake in wording, no need to be upset my friend
Only the nobility, which was composed of germans after the battle of White Mountain.
And religion, and cities which stand to this day and fragments of culture mixed with germanic culture and so on. We can't say if those gauls would be calling themselves romans if not for franks, but daco-roman peasants are evidence they probably would.
Of course they take time to develop, but to become a part of an ethnicity is as hard in case of phenotypical similarity with "typical" citizen.
And now? Would it still matter so much today?
Colonisation and spread of genes was not undertaken everywhere, Italy itself had no colonisation process undergoing after latin wars and yet, those different ethicities of Italian peninsula fully became roman and stably ethnically without external pressure

There won't be any TTIP if Brexit happens. And it's not only something the Tories want. Yes the Tories are annoying but at least they got elected. THe EU didn't.

By that you mean Britain doesn't have class tensions because of their generally conservative values and is therefore more stable. You want Britain to tear itself alive, you clearly don't give a fuck about it's well being.

It means they never assimilated and that assimilation doesn't worked. If Rome had the ability to gas them and repopulate it with Romans than they would have kept that land.

If we had a place to put them than yes, the problem is that we don't have advanced enough technology to send them into outer space. We could exterminate all the niggers in Africa and send them there.

Yes it did, Roman citizens constantly bitched about getting land after every single war from it's very beginning. Every time Rome conquered somewhere it send Romans to that locality mainly because of exponential population growth due to economic growth. Every time there was a clash between plebs and patricians or tribunes and the senate it was over land recently conquered and who to give it to.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_law

No, that is not what I said at all. I said it has an admittedly sub-par say on the laws and regulations which govern the EU single market, which we have via our representation in the EU parliament with our MEPs. If you honestly cannot tell the difference between that and "we have no say in the EU", I don't know what to tell you. By giving up our say on those laws, however small, we are essentially totally submitting to economic regulations which we will actually have zero say in if we leave the political union.

This is true: however, you are still missing the crucial point that I raised, which is that leaving this single market is not on the agenda. The Leave campaign has confirmed on numerous occasions that we will remain in the EU's single market. The only exception to this was Michael Gove. This brings me back to the point of representation I was trying to explain to you before.

By sub-par you mean non-existent. No nation in the EU can fucking pass a law in the European Parliament. Britain has no say whatsoever.

Whilst being able to dictate it's trade with the EU.

As well as it's trade with other markets without all the damn tariffs that hurt every Briton.

I'm pretty sure I meant what I said.

Highly questionable. That's what our MEPs are elected to do.

You still don't seem to be able to understand the argument being put forth. That is not true. We will be remaining in the single market, governed by it's numerous regulations and laws, whilst simultaneously giving up even the semblance in a say of what those laws should be. Here, I'll post Varoufakis explanation for you since it doesn't seem that I'm able to get through to you:

lol you don't even know how the European Parliament works, it doesn't pass legislation

Okay, lad.

That's not just a vast oversimplification, it's just plain wrong.

Rome suffered from numerous internal and external problems that it might have been able to handle independently, but because they happened either concurrently or in quick succession it was simply unable to cope. But really, the things that killed it had been common themes throughout Roman history, not the least of which were

1. Its class conflicts
2. Its stagnant and monopolized economy
3. Its political instability and infighting

What killed Rome wasn't those awful foreigners what took thur jerbs, it was because the Romans were too busy killing each other to mount anything like a defense. Over and over again we see the same things happen: the rich get richer, until they're so rich that they can't be reined in by governmental power, eventually forming their own armies either out of material or political necessity, until they eventually topple the state.

As ever, the people running the country were the ones responsible for ruining it, not the "lazy poors and immigrants" you utterly stupid cunt.

You mean that hellenic jews reverted to being 100% kosher? That's quite a bold claim, especially when we take the cultural affinity between hellenizers and early christians converted by paul and his goy followers in the account.
They just started using more loyal hellenised nations for that, notably philistines, namesakes for Palestine :^)

Also I fucked up and mixed latin and social wars, sorry fam.

Because of immigration and expansion into foreign lands.

Because the people running the country thought they could assimilate foreigners into the empire, but instead it had a reverse effect. Your interpretation is willfully ignorant of the importance ethnic differences. Class conflict would have never been an issue if Rome hadn't made so many concessions to the plebs. If Rome had forced it's plebs into line by force they wouldn't have become so arrogant. It shouldn't have even had a tribune or an assembly. The mob is a fickle and retarded beast.

Jews have always been like that. They're still like that.

Is that like mead?

...

Who is they?

da joos

Jesus and Christianity was something of a freak phenomena that came out of the Jewish fanaticism of the Messianic Age. Nevertheless it didn't disrupt Jewish ethnocentrism, which one of the strongest forms of racism to be witnessed ever. Jews were never really Hellenized, rather the Hellenic world became Christianized.

Xenophobia, please don't water down funny political words

Christianity became Hellenized, and thus has nothing to do with Jews.

Except for the west, where it's shit.

t. Orthodox

Ancient Jews are long dead. All we have now are Talmudists

No arguments?

Come-On-Now.

the Pope is not always right
the holy spirit is only from the father
Eastern Roman Empire survived longer. West had to loot it to fall

It's not merely a matter of fearing others, it's a matter of loving your own people. Love is the source of both fear and hate.

I can see you running away to brit/pol/, you know.

Yanks need to stop forcing their Trump memes on brit/pol/

Its "Mr Slippery". Anthony is "The Blair Creature".

I prefer Dishface

Why would people keep going along with this rhetoric from the in campaign that voting out would lead to more power for the tories? If you wanted a true welfare state you would vote leave as that's the only way it can work, atm we've ceded more power to the eu than back in 1973, then we had 20% of the seats now we have 4%, staying in the EU won't allow more power on laws only diminishing returns and less and power over controlling the way your country is run.

No. You're only destroying "yourself" if you have already accepted that identity is necessarily part of yourself. It's not.

This is about a fact, not about an identity. I do not dispute the fact that one has certain obligations outside of the mind, I dispute that we need to integrate these obligations into our mind so much that they form part of "me".

It's not about pretending. It's about actually treading the path of realisation - seeing that these things really don't form part of you. They're not your self.

There is a large leap between "I accept that environment influences my decisions" and "I must respect, pay homage to and always remember the environment I was born and raised in, otherwise I'm losing my identity."

You're confusing identity and description.

I agree. That doesn't mean I need to make it part of my identity in order to enjoy it or for it to simply exist.

Only if you make it part of your identity. What is the identity of a cultural nomad, or a wandering recluse? He has no fixed culture, no reference point. He's only molded by his environment.

Identity is what you decide it is, if you take the effort to observe what you take to be "self". Consider the position that many of the things we consider part of ourselves we don't make part of our identity. The school you first went to, for example; it had an effect on you, but you don't base your identity around it.

Precisely; but we must also realise that culture is impermanent and transitory. It changes over time, and to cling to a certain point of culture is to set yourself up for suffering. People have culture, but there's no reason why an individual can't change that culture, nor is there a reason why the culture can't change an individual.

No. Becoming the plaything of people is caring about what they think of you, how they talk to you, the insults, the praise and blame. If you don't fear these things, you have no reason to mold to their desires. It is mastery of the mind.

It is a shame many people are only rein-holders of their own minds, not chariot drivers. And it's a shame that people advocate being stuck in a sense of hopelessness rather than becoming master of one's mind.

It's only to one's advantage that he becomes immune from praise and blame. A lot of suffering ceases when one takes what is said as what they are - just words.

As are people, that doesn't mean you should forgo it or neglect it.

If you don't respect other people's opinions then they won't respect yours. In order to live in society you must be considerate of others, and you cannot survive without society.

You assume that identity is something you have control over. You don't get to choose your identity, you are not a master over who you are. You are a fucking slave of other people. The moment you ignore that then you will either die or be thrown in jail. You have a problem with reality. You are not free, thinking that you are will set you up for disappointment. You assume you can just leave and become what you want to be, but wherever you go people will define you as they please and you will not be able to stop this.

As long you continue in this belief people will manipulate you into thinking that your with a nation, or sex, or race. People will take your nation, they will abuse your people, they will laugh at your arrogance as you become a bum, a nobody who can be prodded as they please. The paradox is that your belief in freedom is what makes you more of a slave than the man who accepts the identity that society has given him. Once you own that identity you can master this world, only then.

I agree, but we shouldn't make it part of our identity. Because it changes, and suffering is caused when change happens, especially negative change. By making it part of your mind, you are effectively giving it access to upset you. Don't give it access.

It's not about respecting opinions, it's about letting people influence your mind and thoughts.

It's not an instant change. One does not simply one day say "I no longer identify with being "; instead, he contemplates the true meaning of gender, and sees that there is no reason to ascribe the gender to his mind; he sees it as a dependency that he doesn't need. For sure, he is still male, but he doesn't identify with being male.

The meaning that one penetrates by contemplating himself is precisely what people need to reach. He asks some questions, like:
etc.

You are not understanding the distinction between description and identity. Obeying social norms relating to how you should be (like ticking the box that you are a male on a form) has nothing to do with making identity part of your mind. It has nothing to do with not functioning in society. One just realises that these things are social conveniences, and sees no reason for them to reside in his mind.

What is freedom? To me, freedom is only freedom from suffering. One part of suffering is identifying and clinging to identity. I'm not totally free, but I'm a little more free than those who worry and have delusions of what constitutes part of the self.

People can do as they please with identifying and defining me. What they think, as I have stated earlier, is not my concern. I aim to be unshaken by praise and blame.

And I will not worry because it is not part of my identity. I have compassion for people, regardless of who they are.
Imagine the case in which I have it part of my identity. In that case, I just get angry and upset. I lament and beat my chest. Filled with despair and suffering.
Without identity, I do not suffer, I listen to the suffering of others and I am compassionate, doing my best to alleviate the suffering. There's no reason why sadness needs to be the only motivator for action.

Quite the opposite, when we have rid ourselves of identity, boundaries between people open up (what more than removing suffering and boundaries is true freedom?). We aren't affected by the mean and hurtful things people say, nor do we become overconfident with pride and ignorant with joy.

Loss of identity has as its fruit equanimity.