It’s ‘Good’ If Conservatives Feel Unable To Speak On Campus

But it's true. Look at twitter (even with its pozzed ownership and mods) and 4/pol/ (and with its pozzed mods). They do the vast majority of the redpilling.

When true free speech exists, the right tends to always win. That's because the reality is no longer and doesn't need to be censored. Classical liberalism itself is right wing.

Woah, cool gun, how does it shoot?

Eyyy, glad to see I'm not the only one that realized it. Free speech is a false ideal. Liberal ideology should NEVER be promoted. It is directly destructive to civilization and must be suppressed. That doesn't mean hide all knowledge of it and burn books, it means jailing all subversives and killing those who devote their lives to treason. Groups such as the antifa are domestic terrorists.

Free speech is fine if its amongst people who are being intellectually honest. However most people aren't; they are not interested in searching for the truth but only whatever suits their ideology.

But to point here, progressive, when they used to call themselves "liberals", used ideas like "free speech" as a trap against rightful right-wing rule. As we see today, never believe in those principals honestly, only as long as it suited them. So as long as they suppress us from peaceful solutions, it leaves us with only one recourse left:

God fucking damn it.
Why is shit like this allowed?
Shouldn't there be some watchdog organization making sure that pieces of garbage who pull this kind of shit get called out?
Shouldn't there be consequences for subhuman savages who want to abolish the 1st amendment and start imprisoning people who disagree with their preferred policies?
How is real life not a dystopia?

Every time I take the political compass test my answers to questions that evoke this concept inevitably lead me to be a leftist; regardless of my espousing right-wing ideologies. I think it's the retarded questions about abortion that skews me results; it's hard to reconcile being anti-abortion but pro-eugenics in what is basically a personality test.

My only solace is that I always end up like 90% fascist, but still 10% left of middle always leaves me questioning.

The establishment is on the authoritarian left. They always will be until someone systematically dismantles it.

Because people like you just sit there and cry about it on the internet.

Yes … go out and make it. Don't wait for someone else to do it for you.

I think this is true, i remember a while back we had a thread about how every anonymous image board in every language always ends up slanting to the right. That's why (((these people))) are terrified of real free speech and are now trying to change it in to what is effectively just virtue signalling.

I don't try to beat around the bush. I'm a hypocrite. I would NOT give any leftist/marxist/kike freedom of speech. Fascism works because it doesn't tolerate dissent.

Correct. It's strange on a board awash in Warhammer memes that this concept is lost on people.

My point is that we've had the 1st amendment for almost 3 centuries now, so someone should have done it at least 2 centuries back.
Will you join my watchdog organization if I form one, user? Or will you just keep calling me names?

non STEM fags deserve this anyway

...

That's the fuckwit that defended Sharia law and when called out on it by even muslims, she still defended it. We really need to shoah CNN.

archive.is/Yi1mS
archive.is/xvSP1

>>>/ovens/

It already has completely blunted anthropology as you can't discuss racial biology and deep history.

I'm sure people have, but these days the only true defender of the First Amendment is the ACLU. Before you reee, the ACLU also defends places like Holla Forums and neo-nazi groups, skinheads, and other people who need FA protection. They're not just defending liberals and feminists. If you want a group that ONLY defends right-wing speech, then you'll have to form it.

Depends on the method and the cause. If you're defending right-wing speech through the law and the courts, then absolutely. If you're going around beating up trannies and liberals, then no.

Yes, I will. Because the First Amendment says I can, faggot.

wew

there's a bullet in the tube that gets hit by a thing

I've been thinking about this for a while and it is the only solution i can come up with in regards to marxism. The only reason it really exists and is used these days is to destabilize societies. You can't tolerate something that has no intention of tolerating you.

Sadly i think free speech would work just fine in white societies, so it's just another good thing ruined by (((certain people))).

The warhammer meme sorta works if you think of marxism like chaos. I remember the societies that tolerated and studied psykers got destroyed by demons while the ones that went full purge on em were the ones that survived.

Well then maybe I won't welcome you into my fascist free speech club, if that's going to be your attitude toward me and everyone else who shares our goals.

...

Then you have already failed at free speech. Good job.

...

"Free speech" means you can insult people if you want to. It doesn't mean that everyone you insult has to want to be in your presence. It's called freedom of association, and it's another thing that's under threat. I wouldn't want to associate too closely with somebody who can't say a sentence to me without going out of his way to insult me.

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree. If we had real free speech (and not our current "free speech" where you can say what you want, but if you oppose leftist ideals everyone will call you Hitler), then leftist ideologies would constantly be getting BTFO.

If people push for tranny rights, point out that all trannies have severe mental issues, and extremely high suicide rates (even post-op and when living in areas where "transphobia" is low).

If people push for gay rights, point out how sodomy leads to AIDS, hepatitis, rectal cancer, and other medical problems. Also point out how homosexuality often leads to rampant promiscuity (anonymous sex, large orgies, etc.) and homosexuals have a much higher incidence of pedophilia.

Same thing applies to other leftist "virtues" (feminism, diversity, communism, etc.)

The moment you bank your continued existence on the expectation of reciprocal tolerance is the moment you've slit your own throat.

Back in the good old days, you didn't need free speech laws. Everyone was nice and cordial to one another and didn't say stupid shit. I mean, you could say whatever the fuck you wanted, but that didn't mean a Big Guy wouldn't stove your head in for it if it was stupid.

But it doesn't, clearly. If such ideologies weren't sirens of ruin, Western civilization wouldn't have degenerated. We can argue about what the first liberalizing agenda was (it was cuckstianity convincing Euros to kill their own kin in the name of a new, foreign ideology…to say nothing of the ideology itself, the mere fact of accepting it was a betrayal of tradition), but the point is that these ideologies would not take root if they were not appealing to someone. There will always be people who can be deluded by the promises liberal ideologies make which are impossible to achieve. Most people are too weak to choose the truth when there are those who offer them easier lies. That is why such ideologies must NEVER be tolerated. The second you argue against traditionalist virtue is the moment you've outed yourself as a traitor. We can expect nothing good from people who choose to advocate for lies which are harmful to the folk.

The entire system of problems we face today could have been avoided if our ancestors had taken a less tolerant attitude toward deviant ideologues within their own communities. Allowing the sort of person who would use free speech to decry in-group preference to exist within society is simply madness.

The only speech which should be protected is truth. Lies must be punished. Liars must be excluded.

Gas yourself

That shit doesn't work anymore. You can't censor everyone in the internet age, it just doesn't work. And furthermore, have fun overturning the first amendment.

Fascism works because it's not a one suit fits all ideology, it is specially tailored to each country d it's specific needs economically, socially, etc.,

Do I have to be completely hyperbolic to the point of parody to share this mindset? Also as much as everyone shitposts here, most people don't really want a day of the rope. They're here because liberals got extremely arrogant and are overreaching constantly.

Actually God says that, and the First Amendment backs that assertion presumably with the full weight of the Law and the Executive powers enforcing the Law.

It's a common mistake to believe our US Constitution grants you the rights with which you were born.

sounds like complete justification for speaking my mind, getting some SJW to assault me, and then beating the shit out of them with an ASP baton in self defense.

Not an excuse and not just for attacking that poison, that's just two in a sea of shit.

...

Nobody can speak for anyone else on this matter, especially on an anonymous image board.

FTFY
;^}

There are mostly only JEWISH privilege in America.

Go and attack the parasite JEWS

Today the U.S.A. is totally dominated by Jews… Virtually every newspaper or magazine is owned by Jews. Their self-serving propaganda constantly fills the TV screen. The Federal government is totally under Jewish control. US military forces are the pawn of Israel. The banks, the markets are theirs. They systematically denigrate the americans Founding Fathers and their heritage and their Constitution. President Nixon was caught on audio tapes agreeing that Jews have a "powerful stranglehold on US Media. He said during his second term he was going to do something about it. Unfortunately for Nixon he never got a second term. Watergate broke, thanks to 3 Jewish gentlemen. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward, and Carl Bernstein, and William Mark Felt, Sr. of the FBI. Over 90% of Americans are completely unaware that they're being ruled over by Jews.

Jews make up about 2% of the american population, about 0.5-1% in Europe, yet they own like 90% of the media and banks and they are in government positions all over the western worlds aswell. This is in no way a secret, yet most people don't know this because the media does not mention it. Even if you were to tell them they probably would not even see the problem with this monopoly, and call you a "racist" or an "antisemitic Nazi". They have a lot of power and influence misty because they are the closest to the money supply. It was jews who created the international fractional reserve banking model so if one fails and jews are expelled you still have the others. They have used this money to buy the media and politicians and extend this thought process to globalization.

Who Controls America?
thezog.wordpress.com/

There has been a serious and very-visible influx of cuckservatives the last few days.

Protip: Most people HERE do want a day of the rope. Most people OUTSIDE HERE… ALSO want a day of the rope, they just don't know it yet.

Liberal arrogance and overreach had basically nothing to do with my being here - it was all about the demographics.
And I wager most people would feel a similar way, if they knew about the state of US demographics.

You are in the tiny minority of people who are not prepared to go out this night and remove Semite. A lot of us have no problem pushing every shitskin out of the country with the threat of death and following through on any who refuse to leave.

Non-whites can never be anything other than segregated serfs in our civilization, and pretty much everyone but the Asians have made it clear they will not abide by such an arrangement. Kikes will always be subversive parasites, and our society cannot be restored until they are removed. Niggers will always be beastial degenerates, and our society cannot be restored until they are removed. At least the orientals can be made to shut the hell up and perform whatever work is expected of them. Leeches, apes, ants compared to the Indo-European Man. It is our lot to drain the swamps, beat back the jungles, and manage the earth.

The Bill of Rights clearly states that it does not enumerate all rights, and also clearly states that it does not grant these rights: the Creator does.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote about his time as a laborer in Vienna, and how he learned of Marxist tactics through the actions of some of his fellow laborers. Hitler tried arguing with Marxists, but didn't do very well until he became well-read on the topic of Marxism, and was able to use their own ideas against them by showing how they were reasonably incorrect. Eventually, it got to the point where the Marxists threatened to assault him if he didn't fuck off with his dissenting views.

The only side that ever needs to take away free speech is the side that can't win rhetorically or factually.

This is, however, not to say that those Marxists and Jews, who would sooner threaten our lives and our families than argue, should be tolerated. Anyone who seeks to do harm, cannot be beaten by good-will. They must be put down.

Top Kek

You're cute.

Good god, is it a Jewish thing or a dyke thing that makes people like (((Kohn))) and Maddow look like they're underaged twinks

I was born with natural rights. Prove me wrong, litfag.

There is no way to "win" rhetorically against liberal ideology. Liberal ideology is entirely based on redefining reality such that the ideology is now inherently moral, whereas the truth of the matter is that the ideology is destructive. Anyone who openly advocates for a liberal ideology is a traitor. Sure, edgy 15 year olds get can get off with a night in jail for their communist phase. However, if that night in jail isn't enough to get them to never say a nice thing about communism again, it's the noose that will.

The world does nothing to secure your "rights". It is done all by your fellow man. Your "rights" are entirely the domain of social compact. They are granted by man, they can be revoked by man.

You sound like that Nestle kike CEO now. Nothing has a right to exist unless I say so, so now you give me shekels! Just fuck off. Everything that exists has the right to exist; right up until it dies or someone/something revokes those rights.

All life has the right to water.

You can't prove me wrong, and now you're not even trying. Fucking pathetic, user. Really pathetic.

I didn't use any of those.
In fact, I said you're cute.
You are.

You first.

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFTHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAH

Jesus Christ, Burr, is that you?

have fun failing the rest of your life with your liberal arts degree, litfag!

Life can't exist without water. Life existing is authentication of life's right to water.

What is the guarantor of this right? If no source exists which intervenes to uphold such a right, no such right exists. You suppose that because a lifeform can take nourishment for itself that it has the right to do so.

Jesus Christ that is such a pathetically cuckolded, anti-Terran sentiment.
Are you an ayyy lmao, or just a complete playing a joke?

The concept of rights is just delightfully comedic.

Out of curiousity, how do YOU define a right?
A Jewgle search suggests it to be:

You have no moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain anything, nor to act in any certain way.
Prove me wrong. ;^)

Example:
Ebola ahs a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain water?
Malaria?
A rabid dog?
A repeat-offender child-raping nigger?
A nigger?

Really?
Come on bro, that's ludicrous.

What created life?

my only regret is that i have no dubs to check for you

You don't know. ;^)

Some people have been here before the spasmatic edgelords arrived who take those stormfag memes seriously. It's funny you're accusing others of being newfags now. There's a reason btw why people here don't care about Trump's Jewish ties at all. If people took day of the rope literally, they'd want to attack Trump, but they don't.

How many shekels per post do you earn, Rabbi?

Still can't disprove that rights are inherent, not granted. You cannot prove life doesn't have the right to water.

I can prove your life has the right to water by depriving you of water and watching you beg as you die from thirst.

Nah, most people are 100% down for DotR, they just realize how god awful it'll be if it comes to that.

And, frankly, Trump is basically offering a low-scale day of the rope, ala deportation of illegals, soo….

And FYI, there is totally a reason people don't mind Trump's Jewish ties - because the alternative is even Jewier, and isn't offering a wall/deportation of the illegal spic demographic.
If you're honestly trying to push a "Holla Forums doesn't actually mind Jews" narrative, please just tell me so that I can start laughing at you.

You actually don't need to suppress freedom of speech to control degeneracy/liberals.

You just need strong national propaganda.

You don't need to silence others, you just need to shout louder.

Liberals have won because they're the ones shouting the loudest via liberal media that's promoting racemixing, diversity, etc.

Nothing, life is a concept. Arising phenomena can meet the criteria for that concept, but are individually arrangements enacted by self-replicating patterns which emerged from the sea of possibilities.

Things only got to this point because of the idea you propose. If you don't actively dissolve liberal agents, their propaganda will spread because it is based in falsehood and can therefore present an impossibly appealing argument. There will always be one idiot dumb enough to drink the kool-aid, and then the liberals are shouting just a little bit louder. If you don't sweep out the dirt, it's only going to collect.

re: taken from kikepedia
JEWS BTFO

What is the guarantor of these rights? There is no natural, universal force which enforces the right of life to water, or the right of man to speech. I can form a nation in which freedom of speech is restricted and your only appeal against it is to argue with other men to destroy my nation due to your opinion. The "authority" which enforces the supposed natural rights is the same authority to which they are supposedly superior. If the guarantor of those rights is man, they are not natural rights; they are rights of social compact.

Bb

Watch.

Proves I have no rights whatsoever, silly billy - I have no inherent moral or ethical entitlement to have or obtain water, nor to act in a certain way, namely to continue to act in the context of living.

Demonstration complete.
Thanks for your help kiddo. ;^)

Natural rights don't exist though, they are fictional.
Wikipedia can describe fictional matters all day, look up the Holocaust, but not prove they exist.

Prove natural rights exist.
Oh Jew.

Sure there is. We call it "rain" and no man can stop it from happening.

Speech is not a natural, inalienable law.

Life. However, ultimately it doesn't matter. All life dies; most to sustain other life. I guarantee my natural rights by eating other life, and using violence against my own species when required.

Actually you're wrong. I was endowed by my Creator with inalienable rights, like all life. You disagreeing with that assertion doesn't negate its legitimacy. Life being extant proves there is a natural force that enforces the right of life to water; because life doesn't exist without water.

You don't seem to grasp the concept that natural rights are not the same as legal rights.

Yeah you just explained in great detail the fact you don't understand the difference between legal rights and natural rights.

You need better preperation to further your debate.

Citation needed.

More non sequitir.

Yeah just another pleb that doesn't understand the difference between natural rights and legal rights. Keep Jewing, Moshe.

Prove they exist. ;^}

Oh Jew.

Wew lad.

Legal rights are a joke, natural rights are just fiction.

Whatever rights would be 'natural' would be internal choice-based mechanisms of an individual.

Like Right to Interpretation. Basically so long as you are alive, you can choose to look on matters positively or negatively, or choose not to consider them at all.

Right to Purpose is the ability for human beings to make a purpose out of even absurdities.

But when it comes to things external to yourself, you can only have rights if they are somehow enforced, by agreement, force, or otherwise. Hence advanced societies can have the luxury of rights like 'Free Expression' but such rights would utterly break down if social order collapsed or if the powers controlling society decided to remove them.

You can't exist without water.

(((people)))

There are more than jews going in the ovens this time around.

is there a more oven worthy Jew?

And? What does this give you right to? What is the claim that a natural right to water grants you? If it grants nothing, there is no right.

Not a right, simply a condition, granted, inalienable - like the pursuit of happiness.
No moral or legal entitlement to such pursuit, however, its merely your condition.

Essentially, and no such force exists, thus you have no such rights, no such entitlements, or at the very least, effectively do not.

Provide privileges, "legal rights", which may be rescinded at any time and are highly variable in application, thus they are not inherent, nor are they a right.

There is no universal, inherent moral entitlement on behalf of any being, including humans, to any pursuit or treatment - not even to existence.

This sperg right here

thinks they are a master philosopher in that they realize a 'legal' entitlement is wrought by man upon man, and thus not truly a right at all.
Natural rights, which the aforementioned sperg believes exist, are merely fictional, because there is no such universal force as to enforce provision as pertains to entitlement of a moral nature.

The Universe doesn't give a single solitary shit about you in a moral context, and it will not lift a metaphorical finger to aid you, least of all to enforce a perceived 'moral entitlement' to a given pursuit or treatment.

Thus suggesting I have no entitlement to exist, given it is entirely within reason that I may, by aim of man or simple condition, come be bereft of water.
The notion that I am morally entitled to exist, let alone legally entitled to exist, because I exist, is simply laughable.

All life has a natural right to water. You cannot exist without water, and yet you naturally exist; therefore you have a natural right to exist. Since you have a natural right to exist you have a natural right to everything your existence requires (eg, water).

Stop trying to discuss natural rights when you don't know anything about them. There is a difference between natural rights and legal rights.

Get the Coincidince Detector, user.
She's as Jewish as a Three Dollar Federal Reserve Note*

...

The universe or God most certainly gives a shit about me in a moral context, otherwise my constiuent atoms would not have coalesced to form me (a natural being with prerequisites to existence).

I think God/Kek/whatever is busy on a much grander scale of the universe, than giving a particular shit about you the individual

Kek speaks, check'em

praise Kek

They didn't coalesce. You got 3D printed by DNA.

I know what you are saying about natural rights, and what we are saying is that the theory of natural rights itself is meaningless semantics and therefore invalid as a phenomenon. No force guarantees your "natural right" to water. It isn't even truly impossible for life to exist without water. Within the myriad possibilities of the infinite, life exists without water. You exist without water in another when.

Your defenses of natural rights are truly articulate representations of the theory, but that is also exactly why you are wrong.

You existence is random. You only perceive it as significant due to your limited observational frame. ALL possibilities exist, and you are only experiencing the self-awareness of a single observational circuit within the confines of the space-time on which that circuit exists.

Reality is just the collapsing of a probability waveform due to observation.

Then why was I granted natural rights?

I am that force.

See:

You weren't. Stop pretending to be retarded.

...

...

Citation needed.

I clearly have the right to what I need to exist. You can't prove that I don't.

That which is guaranteed by the arisen is not natural right then. You merely define the fact that you exist by a new terminology which holds no meaning. It is pure semantics and your clinging to it by such twisting arguments marks you for exactly what you are.

Hence that is a right. It's a natural condition - it is a natural right because your natural condition allows you to pursue it regardless of external factors.

We are mortal. We feel pain. We die of exposure and lack of sustenance. Controlling any of these over another lets you enforce more or less legal rights (as you put it) over others - save for the sorts of internal rights as described above than cannot be removed from an individual. Because it is their condition, as you pointed out.

Not ones that require external manifestation. But you could sit in total confinement and choose to be happy, or to make some purpose of it, or consider it good or bad. Those cannot be stripped from you, and death merely ends your being rather than takes those things from you. Hence those 'conditions' are the only inalienable rights you technically have.

Liberty therefore could be the internal choice to exercise those conditions inherent in your person, rather than the externalized ideal right of having the freedom of motion, action, etc.

Yeah, that's quite true. Nothing has a right to water any more than I have a right to a sandwich right now. Just because something is necessary to exist doesn't mean it is a right. Existence depends on external variables, and therefore is not inevitably able to be guaranteed by any power. Thus one could make it a legal right to be provided water, but it cannot be a natural right.

In fact, not only do I have natural rights, but I live in a country that grants legal protections to those natural rights. I have both natural and legal rights, each require different methods to defend or revoke.

Check, and mate.

Sure we can.
We'll drop you off in the ocean about 50 miles out without a liferaft.

Look I get that you faux-intellectuals want really badly for natural rights to not be a thing, but for argument's sake pretend you are wrong.

How can something exist without natural rights to that something's prerequisites?

baby's first philosophy debate

You're just trying to use my argument. I can deprive you of water. I say you have a natural right to water because you are alive, and all life requires thus has a right to water. Everything that exists has a natural right to exist otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Not an argument.

White privilege is the dumbest term I've ever heard. That's like going to India and claiming brown privilege because everyone else is brown.

Okay we'll drop you off on the Serengeti 100 miles from civilization without any weapons/tools/supplies.

Try explaining your natural rights to the lions as they eat you.

Oh so now lions have natural rights to eat me, but I don't have natural rights to eat them first? Well you sure showed me!

If the best you can do is try to use my argument for natural rights, against my argument… you'll be here longer than I will be.

...

Why should it need a natural right to a component in order to exist? You can say that such a need exists just as readily as I say that it doesn't. This state shows that the concept is nothing more than a fictional idea. Meaningless words. After all, your supposed natural right has no impact on existence. If it had one, you'd be able to easily define it and thereby prove it real.

See:

You're not even trying now, Moshe.

Kikes are despicable, but kike dykes especially so.

I hope her daughter grows up to be a good white nationalist housewife to a member of RWDS who has 8 kids. :)

Why does life exist? I have no idea, and neither do you.

Life exists. Life has a natural right to exist. Life cannot exist without water. Therefore life has a natural right to water.

...

Life is a natural right only insofar as you cannot be deprived of it. It doesn't guarantee you the resources to continue your existence, but merely that it is inalienable from your human being.

Water is external to your being, and you can easily be separated from water. Legal rights could entitle you to access to water, but they wouldn't be natural right inherent in your being. Even if you die from lack of it, your right to life hasn't been violated because it was never separated from your human being.

...

...

I think you've confused me with someone else as I never once said or even implied that a natural right is a guarantee.

Watching any fucking nature documentary should be enough evidence to support the notion that natural rights are not guaranteed.

It's more like going to the hewish part of your city and clamong semite-privilege is a thing because they live in big house's, have good jobs and don't associate with white dregs like us.

Oh, and don't forget the shomrim
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shomrim_(neighborhood_watch_group)

124 posts later he finally admits defeat

Can you do anything but repeat yourself? You know why people don't like blacks? It's because they act like criminals. You can't walk through their neighborhoods without getting robbed or worse. What you want to do is basically have whites act like niggers. Your hypocrisy is retarded and no one outside of echo chambers even more obscure than Holla Forums actually believes that shit.

Enforcing laws that already exist is day of the rope now?

You know what Day of the Rope means. You don't actually believe in it even yourself.

Holla Forums doesn't mind the Jewish connections Trump has. Because they know not everything is absolute, because they're intelligent and haven't been brainwashed into the binary thinking like you have.

You realized you just used a meaningless concept to try to define that meaningless concept, right? I'm sure you did, just shitposting and all that.

So now you have to prove "Life has a natural right to exist", which of course, you can't do.

No, quite clearly there is no natural right which prevents life deprivation.

28th post and not defeated yet. Natural rights are guarantees News at 11.

Legal rights are not guaranteed either. Oh and don't fucking ask for citations because I'm not spending an hour explaining to you habeas corpus instances throughout fucking history.

Oh?

Life exists. Life exists naturally. Life has a natural right to exist.

he's either a troll, a shill, or some blowhard who thinks he's smart

Are you that same asshat who always argues with everyone about how "NO NO NO WE ARE A REPUBLIC THATZ TOTALLYYYYY DIFFERENT FROM A DEMOCRACY" ?

please articulate your definition of "right" in the context you are using

The United States of America is a federated democratic republic. Come at me, bruh.

fundamental normative rules.

Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights through reason alone.

Getting killed doesn't remove your right to exist from your being - it ends your being. You cannot deprive a person of life, that is deny them the right to exist, without stopping them from existing. Another way to say it is a person cannot exist as a human being without being alive.

Therefore it is by definition guaranteed that one would have these natural rights, which you can call the human condition or whatever else.

which is a form of democracy

A fundamental normative rule is those lions will eat your ass while you try explaining your natural rights to them.

That doesn't define natural right in the slightest. The closest to meaning that can be derived from your arguments is that natural right has the meaning of "can exist naturally" which is simply a statement of fact which does not necessitate the existence of new terminology and has no relation to the definitions of "right". Again, the entire theory of natural rights is nothing more than an exercise in semantics, the favorite pet of the Semite.

Goddamn that looks clean as fuck. I need more Rugers.

She and her wife found a girl to abuse.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-gay-i-want-my-kid-to-be-gay-too/2015/02/19/eba697c2-b847-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html?utm_term=.fa63309a3cd6

Your lion analogy is shallow and doesn't account for the human condition. Which as you should know is the apex species of Earth (the planet where we share an existence with lions). You assume I don't know how to set traps, make spears, hunt, or the difference between diurnal, crepuscular, or noctural predators. Assume that I'm a gifted spear crafter, trap setter, hunter, and familiar with the local wildlife's habits.

I would simply explain my natural rights to said lion during a feast on his corpse.

You are not born with these talents.

Nigger you're making this too easy.

Lions aren't even born with that innate "talent"

You might as well have told your opponent, "Well I have the golden gun AND body armor, so I win."

The outcome doesn't matter with your encounter with the lion, or a volcano, or the vacuum of space. The problem is that your 'right to life' doesn't mean you have some obligation from your environment to exist - it means you living is inseparable from your existence as a human being.

YOU FUCKING KIKE
I'LL CRITICIZE WHAT I WANT

Lions have only instincts. I the ability to use logic and reasoning along with instincts. Score one for humanity.

No the problem ITT seems to be people like you improperly infering that natural rights are somehow also guarantees.

I oppose speech that exists for the sole purpose of attacking nationalist and other white attitudes. That's like, literally. Literally. LITERALLY on the wrong side of history and honestly I feel like I might get PTSD and personally experience the collective suffering of countless generations if it's allowed to occur. Marxists, Jews, leftists and inferior-challanged peoples should in fact feel an absolute horror for ever publicly espousing their ideals. Because they should be retroactively aborted because it's my country my choice you bigoted cum addicts! (no offense to the cum inclined people or victims of addiction in general because in the name of inclusiveness you should also be retroactively aborted)

Don't bother

His premise is basically:

Guy might as well be Jaden Smith

score one for HURRRRR

So it's come to this then? Good.

This guy's premise is basically:

Guy might as well stick to his ad hominmens and non squitirs.

Baby's can hold conversations with plebs on a Nova Scotian hand-crafted fishing-boat online mail exchange.

so much salt

How is Life not a guarantee to a conscious human being? If it was debatable, you could be a conscious human being without being alive potentially - which isn't possible.

There are no natural rights that deal with the world external to a human being's conscious mind. Nature grants you only your body in which you have those inalienable - inseparable - rights to things like Life, Liberty, blah blah blah.

It might be confusion of terms on all partys' ends. What is a 'right', and what is the difference between a 'natural right' and a 'legal right'? Could be a flaw in English - like how love is used to mean romantic love or strong adoration or familial affection.

...

His definition for natural right is

Which he then twists into

He's nothing but semantics

No life has any inherent right to live. It can only strive to ensure its existence against the forces of nature which begat it, but this is only a passive phenomenon. It can and very often is taken away with not the least bit of pause from anything. This right you talk about is a optimistic appraisal of what we actually rate in the universe… Sorry to break it to you but it would go on regardless.

This is why people hate faggots and dykes.

I agree. I like thinking of this hypothetical, were in power would i allow Marxists to freely gather and form parties and push their ideas? Absolutely not! Now this would technically speaking mean i am against free speech and so be it. Would i silence right wing brothers who may disagree with me on methods toward achieving a goal? No because no matter the disagreement as long as they are pro-white i will listen to them and allow their voices to be heard, generally speaking. The philosophy of Marxism as with other leftist ideologies are anti-white therefore they have no voice, period!

Would the lack of dissent from your views and the views of your people make them weak to such seditious incursions however? That is, if a generation went by without ever having heard of a Marxist argument or why it was inferior to your own, you might not build a tolerance for such an infection of that idea in your populace.

Basically in the pursuit of cleanliness you invite a truly nasty infection for posterity.

Well, resistance to those ideas is a better word, since tolerance is mix-matched in meaning there.

What about honeypots? I'd definitely have a good secret police force.

Also, I'd still teach Marxist shit, but only for high end students who went through a strongly patriarchal and nationalistic school system. Anyone with Communist thoughts should be shunned and laughed at.

I don't believe the masses to be capable of deciding what is best for them as a whole in the first, hence why i don't encourage things like free speech or Democracy for that matter. Most people sway toward whatever is the dominant culture coming down to them from the top, as is the case with the west today, unfortunately. Naturally in this scenario i and other pro-white leaders will be learned in the ways of our enemy so as to properly lead against what seeks to destroy us.

Just look at Germany today. It went from the 3rd Reich to what it is today, i don't entrust the well-being of the nation on the majority, most people (normies) even today are just apolitical, they adapt.

GTFO

Sounds good

I guess the left don't know their history.

They only know it through their modernist lenses.

Free expression is design to protect ideas from mob suppression. I agree that the average populace is unfit to embrace the higher ideals of its age intellectually - but they can through clever systems designed by the cleverer ones. Normally they just don't care who they serve so long as their lives are relatively comfortable.

Free Speech isn't to protect the mob, but the individual with ideas from the mob. Governing the mob can be done either through Authority or by appealing to them emotionally. Marxist ideologies turn minor and sometimes major intellectuals into cult leaders who then convert mass followings of gullible, disaffected mobs to their cause. Other philosophies can capitalize on just the same.

Just remember that without free expression whoever is in charge gets to decide what you can view - and certain parties are particularly good at infiltration of governmental structures over the long-term.

If there is such a system we certainly haven't seen it in our lifetimes and probably never will

Exactly.

Why even risk it? Why permit them the chance to create divide if we can as you say "Govern them through authority"

I don't want anti-whites deciding that, period.

Which is why we need to build up a healthy defense.

Democracy is not your friend.

Conservatives can only express their views on campus if the College Republicans chapter is filled to the brim with spics and Asians.

Any other LMU-fags here? Last president of the LMU College Republicans was a literal manlet kike, and the rest of his e-board were beaners.

What a coincidence!

are you like 14 or something

what does that have to do with the concept of "rights" whatsoever

you have a lot to learn

Boy, it's hard to believe some of what I'm reading ITT. I hope y'all are just having a quick LARPing session because if you geniuses actually believe that ending free speech works against marxism and in favor of a unified and sustainable nation state, then I daresay you're out of your fucking mind. Do you anons really think that every white nation on earth should look exactly like nazi germany? That's a good way to homogenize and genocide your own people for one thing, not to mention it being counterproductive to the order of ass-backwards. For example:

apparently believes that instead of defeating marxist ideas through meritocracy (which is easily done), we should just tailor the fundamental basis of our nation around the fear of that one dumb idiot here and there that says something false as though he himself is some sort of formidable force that a noble society cannot survive if he is not dealt with pre-emptively. What does that say about the merit and willpower of the nation, if it can't defeat bad ideas head-on? For that matter, how is anyone, even a smart person, supposed to know what is or isn't a bad idea if they can't express it and see how it interacts with the world?

I mean really listen to yourselves, you're essentially saying that being wrong should be against the law. I'm willing to bet if such a law existed none of you would be free by now. I can certainly admit that I wouldn't. You have no legitimate way of discerning misconception from subversiveness, which varies entirely based on the individual expressing the idea. The best you could do is to litigate instances of hypocrisy where someone says something that arguably contradicts what they've published before. Even that, though, doesn't make the case against their right to make either statement.

Not to mention the potentiality for streisand effect that would only help make marxist ideas appealing again; because the fact of the matter is there will never be a perfect form of government, and in acts of rebellion people will often flock to banned ideologies that they never would have supported if not for the sympathy they feel for them in being suppressed by the government against whom they wish to dissent. And if it's your opinion that the nation should never dissent against the government or the law, then you sure as fuck better not be speaking as an American.

Even the act of self-defense can be interpreted as a subversive expression against the status quo, if the law is so inclined. The rabbit hole of potential corruption is endless. To oppose free expression is to oppose rights themselves. Hell, self-expression isn't even a right, it's a fundamental and inescapable function of being alive. For any government to think it should or even possibly can control this, is to impose an an unnatural existence on its people. And any people who would embrace resorting to such a thing as a means to protect themselves from their own tendency to believe bad ideas are not the quality of people whom the nation should be hosting in the first place.

...

all this time passed yet marxism is more popular these days than ever, does that indicate anything?

you can't "defeat" an idea that people want to believe. doesnt matter that diversity causes conflict, that leftists are hypocrticial, etc. they hate people like you because you arent them, thats it. theyll simply never accept that your ideas values and systems are measurably better at achieving what they want than their own are, and or what they want is a completely different world from you, so they dont care. these are the people who will deny that the sky is blue if a PoC tells them that the scientists who study skies are white supremacists

I recently saw parts of a Louder with Crowder episode where she explicitly and deliberately said she was Jewish. She was defending muslims too, which was of the ultimate humor

It indicates that society does not value the unfiltered truth. Unfortunately this mindset is also the hallmark of all anti-free speech philosophies, even those that think they're defeating untruths.

That's right! Have that mentality. Dismiss everyone as pretenders! Don't attack the idea, that would require too much thinking.

Still believing in that false idea that everyone will come to your nationalist thinking or even Marxist thinking for that matter, most people simply do not fucking care!

How the fuck do you propose to get the majority of people to even give a flying fuck about politics whether left or right? Answer that first!

Being anti-white should be against the law, leftists don't even believe in the notion of race itself, for fuck's sake!

This bullshit logic "hurr if it ain't broke don't fix it" look where that got you, you fucking idiot!

What rights? Who granted you these fucking rights? Give me a name!

Go start your individualistic paradise on your own, away from civilization. The country was never founded as such no matter how badly you claim it was! It was founded on race
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

Our bond with Europe is a bond of race and not of political ideology

Wait, so should leftists be allowed to live in the nation without the right to speak or should they be killed? There's no reason to revoke free speech if you're just going to outright remove those people anyway. Allowing to speak makes it easier to find them for such purposes.

Who do you think you're arguing against? It's like you think I'm a marxist individualist and a meritocratic nationalist at the same time, and you seem to resent me equally for both. Made me chuckle a bit.

Don't know if you read it before replying, but I wrote a pretty big post up there attacking the idea of preserving order through suppression of speech. I can tell you're mad about this, so it's understandable if you didn't. All I'll say is that for your sake I hope the dictator you intend to surrender your life and country to isn't as emotional about it as you are.

Just dismiss the fact that i pointed out grievances whether left or right when i used such language as:

There's me! Criticizing both the left and the right, again that would require too much thinking on your part.

Yes, just ignore the fact that i quoted nearly every single line of your post, that will do.

And this is when i stop taking you seriously. You are pathetic.

What a handsome chap

That's cool. If you're interested, the reason I didn't take you seriously is because every quote response you made was a mischaracterization of what I said. My original post speaks for itself. I don't have to reassert it through your interpretation.

Weak

Self check.

...

...

...

...

It's like they want to be gassed.

kys.

The problem is not free speech

The problem is the lack of it.

That does not infer a right.

Beautiful.

I would personally love to get my hands on an integrally suppressed 10/22 takedown with a stainless finish and an OD green, hogue thumbhole stock. Someday, someday…

Ruger 22/45 w/ an aftermarket barrel

.22lr caliber

very fun to shoot

good for plinking & great for handgun marksmanship practice b/c cheap(est) ammo & very little recoil

This, free speech is shit
As soon as we are in power we need to eliminate it, all dissent is to be crushed, we shouldn't fuck around

Also remember that there is little to no point in trying to argue with leftist scum

They are so warped mentally that they are in too deep, they are too far gone, it would take literal forced rehabilitation camps to undo their programming which would take a long ass time and a shit ton of resources, and why even bother? Do any of you really feel any kind of sympathy for them?

Make it a crime to criticize Trump, nationalism, or any of our other values, and make it a crime to promote globalism or multiculturalism or whatever

Blatant lies, things that are proveably un true, whether the person saying it knows it or not, are not to be tolerated because when they are the modern US is what you get

Having a non- shit tier society trumps being able to say what you want

Keep your fucking mouth shut or be deported/imprisoned/killed, whatever we decide on

We can't ever let them spread their poison ever again

I wish I was a (((minority))) and could be given a free ride to college while living off welfare. It'd give me a chance to spread some real truth.

Who wants to do a Nazi march across campus blaring Horst Wessel Lied?

Wouldn't they try to use this against us?

that gun looks like someone couldn't decide whether to make a shotgun or a rifle

i hate this jewish dyke with the burning fire of a thousand suns

...

wew - surprised she didn't just call her racist and run away

Once we are in charge they will have no power

The persuit of happiness is not inalienable.

I think she just fails to recognize her jewish privilege.