Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization

>Each book is written by a different author and generally presents a conservative or libertarian viewpoint on the subject at hand.

>Oh shit guys, this has Jesus in it. My left-wing mind can't handle the guy that everybody has a basic idea about.

This idea that the concept of Christianity is some provocative thing needs to stop. Some of the churches I've gone to have acted like they are so edgy for being part of the largest religion in the world that the go on this "I AM SO OPPRESSED" rant, but I digress.

It's just a bunch of revisionist propaganda.

That's not how it happened, friend.

It says it's incorrect in the title.

This series is nothing but right wing propaganda. And to think these people bitch about cultural marxists when they are shilling lies on a whole new level

>This series is nothing but right wing propaganda
They at least say that outright. Nobody in the public school system is going to start a course by stating "hey kids, we're going to talk about history from the perspective of secular-liberal-progressivism"

Nowhere does it say it is right wing propaganda, or even right wing, only that it is 'politically incorrect'

>An institution created from secular liberal and progressive values isn't expected to look at history with that lens
Par for the course

>They at least say that outright. Nobody in the public school system is going to start a course by stating "hey kids, we're going to talk about history from the perspective of secular-liberal-progressivism"

Except schools really just teach a general, simplified overview about major events that are given a paragraph of useful info. On top of that, the kids aren't really listening anyway.

>'politically incorrect'
That means "right wing". Like, where have you been for the past 30 years?

>Except schools really just teach a general, simplified overview about major events
The selection of the events and how they're portrayed betrays heavy bias in the aforementioned direciton.

So 'politically incorrect' it is a political correct way of saying 'right wing' or 'reactionary'? Now that is just fucking rich.

I mean somewhat, yeah. Basically it's just a right wing representation of history, which is fine, historians tend to have a bias, but that is what this is

If someone brags about being "politically incorrect" they are either on the right or they are Bill Maher.

Politically incorrect means "right wing" because in the contemporary western world it's people left of center who dictate what is socially acceptable.

Or it's just people wanting to put off this air of"I'm so edgy and fringe, look at my provocative opinions!"

Yeah, and they can only do that because, as I've said, it's people left of center who dictate what is socially acceptable.

More like the last 5-10 years my gen Z's

No they use the term so that they want to masquerade as something else (Right wing) to avoid criticism.

Politically incorrect used to mean controversial shit people never said, not traditional or reactionary shit people back then said

They don't need anyone to dictate anything. These people can claim their fringe status and not need to prove it. Conservative and liberal opinions are normal but they'll both claim they are politically incorrect and revolutionary.

Dude, what fucking world do you live in? It's Americans that are obsessed with political correctness, and American politics are almost entirely right wing.

Fucking hell, Reagan really did push your political compass right of Nixon and just left of Pinochet.

Which is why the position popularly reffered to as "leader of the free world" is currently a hard rightwing business man.

I didn't say "they're marxist", I said "left of center" as in liberal-progressive. There's nothing "hard rightwing" about america, socially.
You talk about my political compass going right, while it's clearly yours that has gone so far to the left anything right of lenin is "hardcore right wing".

Can confirm.

>They don't need anyone to dictate anything.
When have I implied they need anything?
I said liberals, progressive liberals, are those who dictate what are the accepted beliefs in polite society: immigrants are good, gays/trans/whatever freak are good, anything traditional (marriage, family, gender roles) is bad and so on. The right has literally no power on the social aspects. It has power when it comes to economics, sure, never denied it, but even then nobody is as free market oriented as they were in the eighties.

American "liberal progressive" is still a right wing position. There is nothing left-wing about them. Your one instance of a "socialist" candidate wanted public healthcare and a higher minimum wage for fuck sake. That's not left of center; start looking at the rest of the world you goddamn idiot.

>So 'politically incorrect' it is a political correct way of saying 'right wing' or 'reactionary'?

Yes. It's one of the more ironic terms in piltical discourse, since it literally just means telling a certain block of people what they want to hear, regardless of accuracy.

If by left of center we mean socialist, sure, but I don't see what's the point in using what is basically a dead political current to define a very useful term. The same reason why we don't mean "absolute monarchy" when we say right of center.

>There's nothing "hard rightwing" about america, socially.
Are you fucking serious? America still has hardcore religious people as an important voter block, America championed free trade and neoliberalism, the radical socialist in your country had the crazy idea of putting a merit good underprovided by the market under a form of government control, America is incredibly rightwing in socially and economically in comaprison to the other economies at the top and socially, to the rest of the world.

>implying socialism is equivilant to monarchy
Jesus fucking christ the highest performing economy in the world, the fifth largest economy in the world has a healthcare system paid for entirely via taxation or other sources of government funding, when in America the idea of requiring health insurance was considered a massively controversial move that a president ran against.

>America still has hardcore religious people as an important voter block
And they decide...what exactly? Have they overturned abortion? Forbidden divorce? Blocked the legalization of gay marriage? No. They've literally haven't accomplished anything of substance on the social plane of politics since forever. If you disagree, point out to their score of successess.

>monarchy is the right wing

Oh hello gramps, how's the 18th century treating you? The right wing now is big business and anti-worker empowerment, which pretty much the entire American political enterprise.

>implying socialism is equivilant to monarchy
It's basically as dead a monarchism in the first world, yes.
>the highest performing economy in the world, the fifth largest economy in the world has a healthcare system paid for entirely via taxation or other sources of government funding
Those aren't socialist policies, they're a product of socialdemocracy, are you memeing me?

The Texas anti-abortion clinic bills.

Your political compass is so fucked up that you consider only extreme right wing to be right wing; abortion is a basic fact of the developed world, being pro-legal abortion is the center.

The whole title "enlightened despot" sounds laughably absurd.

>Yeah the king still has absolute power but now he subscribes to Liberal ValuesTM

>The Texas anti-abortion clinic bills.
lmao, are you serious?
>abortion is a basic fact of the developed world, being pro-legal abortion is the center
>political opinions that were perfectly acceptable socially and politically 40 years ago or fewer are extreme right wing, dude, your political compass is screwed up!
Dude, please tell me again how it's not the center left that dictates what is socially acceptable and what is not

>lmao, are you serious?

Yeah, it resulted in the closure of large numbers of abortion clinics (and consequential a jump in the number of hospital visits and deaths due to illegal abortions, thanks guys for making the world slightly worse).

>Dude, please tell me again how it's not the center left that dictates what is socially acceptable and what is not

Because that's the fucking center, moron. See my previous offer to look at the rest of the fucking world.

>Because that's the fucking center, moron
...and? Do you even know what you're arguing for anymore?
I said that the center left decides what is socially acceptable to believe, I even gave you several examples of topics where the correctTM opinion to old is a center of left one. Can you please refute any of it?

*hold

It's gets dumber.

I'm arguing that what you call 'center left' is just the political center, and you only thing of it as something outside of the political center because you're a right-wing lunatic.

Further, I would argue that none of the positions advocated by that book are even remotely politically correct, because the American political spectrum (as opposed to the global one) is centered well in the fucking right wing. Having something that's politically standard for the developed world does not change this.

>I'm arguing that what you call 'center left' is just the political center
Let's say it is, as decided by whom? How long ago?

>decide to google the name to see if his PhD does actually relate to the field
>oh it actually does, that's a refreshing change
>he denies the existence of the HIV virus

What the fuck.

you mean better. I love this crazy shit

>are even remotely politically incorrect

Decided by the face of world politics, continually.

>Decided by the face of world politics, continually.
Yeah, you're evading the question. People didn't always think the only opinion that is acceptable in polite society on the matter of immigration is that mass migration from the third world is perfectly fine. In fact, most european countries up until 20 years ago didn't even know what the fuck that was. Who was it that pushed that into the "center", in other words, who dictated what is acceptable and what is not. I'll give you multiple options, just try to select the one which looks most likely
- Fascists
- Left of center people
- Leninists

>People don't ridicule gays as freaks anymore
>People don't hate immigrants

I'm going to put that under "people not being edgelords" rather than being influenced by some liberal cabal.

Did you see the part about him being a moonie? It's related to him getting the PhD in the first place.

Option three: liberals. Which I wont deny are a major force of world politics, but they're not left of center, they were at one point (the founding fathers for instance would have been considered radically left by the standards of the French revolution), but are not now. I am arguing that your view of the political spectrum is wrong, and dictated by the American standard, which is rather far-right by world standards, and that this book isn't much further right than the norm of American politics.

>People don't ridicule gays as freaks anymorePeople don't hate immigrants
The fact that you think those strawmen are reasonable makes my argument for me.
>"people not being edgelords"
You're making my point for me even more: people weren't considered "being edgelords" for having those opinions (or, better, the opinions you strawmanned) up until recently. That changed. Why? Who was it?
>being influenced by some liberal cabal
Trying to make it look like I'm talking about a conspiracy theory where there's nothing conspiratorial about anything I've said makes your argument look weaker.

I have an issue with one of your points, the UK's a european country, and we've had "mass migration" theoretically since joining the eu in 1973, implying that we "had no idea what the fuck that was" in 1997 is frankly dishonest.

No, I missed that. I'm guessing it's related to this Moon fellow, but what's a Moonie exactly?

>by the standards leading up to the French Revolution

The Revolution itself got pretty crazy after that.

Just accept that this is the center now and that you're a retard for thinking it's left-wing. Assuming you're not a lunatic monarchist, you're probably left wing by an older standard too.

>liberals
Yeah, liberal progressives are left of center at this point, in the first world, where there is basically no socialist (actual socialist, not just social democratic) presence at all. Right of center you find liberal conservatives.
>dictated by the American standard
I'm not even american lol
>rather far-right by world standards
Please, go talk about gay marriage and ethnic out group fraternity in most of the world and let me know what a jamaican, pakistani or indonesian is going to tell you. Please do, really.

My brother was assigned one of these books on the Civil War for a history class when he attended Clemson. Gave it a glance once, thing sounded like a Dixeboo's wet dream.

Member of the Unification Church (more like a cult), which is under Moon. Pretty shady practices. "Moonie" is just a slang term, because of their bad reputation.

>Please, go talk about gay marriage and ethnic out group fraternity in most of the world and let me know what a jamaican, pakistani or indonesian is going to tell you. Please do, really.

I'll go see what the UN standard is on those things. The developing world doesn't dictate the political spectrum.

I said most, not all. The UK and possibly France are the exceptions, not the rule. Even then, it's 40 years, that's half a human lifespan.
>Just accept
So not only you don't have any argument, you're basically confirming what I said. You, who are left of center if not more, are dictating what is socially acceptable (center) to others.

You said world standards, not "the standards of an institution which is basically the diplomatic arm of the first world".

>The One People's Project described author H.W. Crocker III as a neo-confederate.

So are you seriously arguing that britain and france, two countries that had empires stretching all the way to africa and set up multiple colonies woudl be completely unaware of the idea of increasing immigration to a country in order to increase it's gdp?

Well I've never heard of the OPP and I don't really care whether or not he's a neo-confederate, but his book is shit.

>So are you seriously arguing that britain and france
No, I'm seriously arguing what I said and nothing more, which is that most, not all, most european countries didn't engage in importing massive amounts of third worlders until very recently. Even when it comes to france and britain, being opposed to mass immigration was perfectly fine until not-as-recently but still recently in terms of history but even in terms of a human life.

VIVE

Is a blub by Ann Coulter the royal seal of laughable, right wing, faux intellectualism?

>Lauren Southern

Canada needs to stop shipping their right-wingers over here. That being said, I would definitely fuck.

>She's 21 and has a book
>tfw you are 22 and your biggest accomplishment is finishing college.

/thread

>She's 21 and has a book
It's just the same stupid bullshit shat out by pretty much every other conservative pundit, nothing new or interesting whatsoever to contribute to the realm of human knowledge.Sometimes I wonder how these pundits gain fame when they are so fucking uninteresting.

That being said, I'm gay and I would still definitely fuck.

>In fact, most european countries up until 20 years ago didn't even know what the fuck that was.
The Germanic invasions of Rome? The Huns? Magyars? The fucking Anatolian Turks? Any of these ring a bell?

Read these reviews with a straight face

This one infuriates me the most. All she did was parrot what the White House said and say it in an aggressive, bitchy tone. Then Beck kicked her off his network after she came out for abortion.

>Canada needs to stop shipping their right-wingers over here.

It's not like we send them. We're just more left wing than the states, so they tend to head over there because Americans are more likely to agree with them.

>So not only you don't have any argument, you're basically confirming what I said. You, who are left of center if not more, are dictating what is socially acceptable (center) to others.
>How dare you filthy left winger tell me that my misconception about the political spectrum is wrong! Why are you trying to dictate this to me!

Do you consider it oppression to be told the sky is blue too?

The first world is basically the only place where the left/right scale applies anyway, because that's where it originated and is the place where it's considered a factor in politics.

What did Islam do this time

If you're a man, you do it by spending years developing your media persona, gathering a large loyal audience, and leveraging them for contracts with radio and TV stations.

If you're a woman you just have to meet the sexual fantasies of men who first went through puberty in the 60's and 70's while grabbing as much attention as you can.

>why western civ is the story of us
Is there somebody seriously so fucking retarded they don't see how the roman and greek models have an impact on society today? I mean for fucks sake one of the houses in America is called the senate, people still use latin in discussing british politics with primus inter pares.
Fucking christ.

I think it's just because America is a larger audience for Canadians in media in general, regardless of politics.

Pundits are more entertainers than intellectuals.

What fucking gets me is that there are people out there who think "Jesus is the most important figure in history" is a "politically incorrect" position to hold in the first world. There are honest to god members of the world's largest religion that think they're somehow oppressed because there are people that disagree with them.

Is there a name for the tendency of large groups to feel themselves to be an attacked underdog when smaller groups disagree with them?

Yeah, that too. But we still retain some political mouthpieces and they tend to be more left-wing than the American ones, because that's what sells in Canada.

The actual retardation is Anglos treating Greek and Roman civilization as "ours"

>Race realist = racist
>Identitarians = segregationist
>Alt right = white nationalist

The right is increasingly getting politically correct too. And now that they are mainstream you can't say that politically incorrect = rightwing.

Most of what trump has done so far is dismantle the legacy of Richard M Nixon. In other words there is no more right only post fascist Trumpites and literal Russian Seperatists who control them.

It pretty much was an insurance card to get away with philosophizing in France without getting immediately BTFO by the monarchiboos

You'd have to be pretty dumb to think they said that shit in good faith.

>Trumpites and literal Russian Seperatists who control them
I think drumpfkins are fairly retarded but you don't actually buy into the "MUH RUSSHUNS" narrative, r-right?

Not that guy, but I can see either of the following two scenarios being possible

>Trump is a Manchurian candidate, Putin has to keep buying fruit baskets for his FSB handler because that guy is doing a great job
>Trump administration keeps calling high ranking Russian officials to do vid related

youtube.com/watch?v=Fgk4Cd7h6ak

>Russian officials are increasingly confused and irritated

Global warming was good when you couldn't get enough food and getting a few diseases due to insects and shit was for society a small price to pay.

These days, warm weather don't fuel anything but degeneracy and shitty insects everywhere.

Bump

There's always a market for whores willing to echo political opinions.

>melting icebergs is called degeneracy nowadays

Language sure came a long way since I was born.

Not like anybody is going to miss the Dutch.