There are people who actually get their history from these shitty videos

>There are people who actually get their history from these shitty videos

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qAOKOJhzYXk
newobserveronline.com
breitbart.com/london/
usa.forzanuova.info
therightstuff.biz/2017/11/11/fash-the-nation-96-establishment-extrusion/
youtube.com/watch?v=ba63OVl1MHw
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

NOT

U U U U

>there are people who actually get news from Vox

Their Youtube channel is on point and pretty objective.

I thought they were spelled "PreggoU" xDDDDDD

>there are people

>

My two favorite political magazines are Jacobin and The American Conservative. I'm not sure what this makes me.

>Jacobin rebels

>he doesn't just look at paintings
pathetic

if there is people to read the Jacobin
there is people to watch Prager U

>jacobin and the american conservative.

are you me?

seriously these are some of my favorite magazines too,

>PragerU
>Not a university but pretends to be one to fool the retards into believing it has credentials to be one

>be israeli
>Israelis keep posting pragerU videos and similar propaganda on memebook
>FINALLY SOME PEOPLE ABROAD WHO SPEAK THE TRUTH
I can't stand how manipulated a lot of people here are.

>be israe-
Stopped reading right there.

I unironically do.

I think I saw that one.

Do most people there really believe Israel migh not have nuclear weapons?

>The American Conservative
Or as I like to call them, liberals 20 years behind the Democrats.

No, pretty much everyone knows that we do. Thank you based Vanunu

why?

I like its unbiased and factual approach.

youtube.com/watch?v=qAOKOJhzYXk

Their discussions of politics are usually boring because their opinions and analysis are so predictable. however they don't just produce stuff about Trump all the time, and when they do it will at least have some amazing editing.

Honestly you need to go full mad man and replace The American Conservative with Jacobite or Thermidor. Can't get as far from Jacobin as that.

ahahahhahahahahahahaahhahaahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha literally fucking kill yourself man, you can't be saved.

>all of my socialist friends read the jacobin
>they believe communism wasn't that bad and defend mao

>there are people ITT defending Vox
Might as well defend the Huffington Post and Slate next , Christ.

Nice digits. And don't call them people. Call them"""""""""people""""""""
I feel like saying "The Mainstream media has an obvious left-of-center bias" shouldn't be a controversial statement but people will call you a nazi for pointing that out.

Not exactly only blatantly political lobby group pretending to be academic institution. There are plenty of those on both side of spectrum and when it comes to real universities, academies, colleges, institutions and so on... politically biased individuals should be purged from those as well.

>whatabouting Jacobin this hard ITT
At least Jacobin doesn't pretend to be a fucking university and let you know how it is a socialist manage talking about current socialist things

>my retarded world view is being shattered

kys snowflake nigger

Jacobin is champagne socialism 101.

Ikr? Like I keep saying, there is nothing """""biased""""" about news sources liberals don't like
newobserveronline.com
breitbart.com/london/
usa.forzanuova.info
therightstuff.biz/2017/11/11/fash-the-nation-96-establishment-extrusion/

The point is they don't pretend to be a university and make their bias upfront. Whining about them being red liberals or whatever is just distraction from any criticism of PragerU or any organization that pretend to have credentials it otherwise do not deserve

>I was mocking the dark ages and that video from PraguerU made me look like a fat, smelly, fedora.

I guess they did their job in spite of not being a real university.

Watch their video on why the South flipped Republican in the 60s. It’s full of blantant lies you stupid /pol/ack.

I watch both and don't see the problem.

Vox isnt even political half the time

Watch it, Slate is good

Triggered socialist detected

I'm the poster you replied to.

Their short videos on youtube often touch topics other outlets don't, like the race for the Artic or the North-Korean communities in Japan. And they explain issues like the military-industrial complex in clear and clean terms. See for yourself: youtube.com/watch?v=ba63OVl1MHw

>not punishing both liberals and reactionaries
I bet you like anarchy.

>Be me
>Former Anarchist
Fascism is far better desu, but of course Bakunin > Garl Margs even today.

>not being a Caesarist/Bonapartist and supporting Enlightened Despotism.
Step it up lad.

>anarchism then, fascist now

The constant here is that you a still a helpless ideologue, with no real solutions.

>liberal then, Liberal now
The constant here is that you are still a helpless ideologue, with no real solutions.


See it's not hard to to quoque

I believe Hamilton would've been pro-french if Napoleon had been his contemporary.

Also, pity that Napoleon was forced out before Bolivar had his go at power. Imagine what the west could've been.

>he presumes to know what policies I support or that I latch onto political labels just like him instead of making my own synthesis

Guys, how did you do on your PragerU mid-terms?

Alright
>*insert your views* then, *insert your views* now
The constant here is that you are still a helpless ideologue, with no real solutions.

Except my views didn't evolve under ideological pressures, only in light of new facts (I see each country and admnistrative region as a laboratory for policy-testing) and expert consensus (in topics like climate change, the ecologic anc economic susteinability of fishing practices, medical care, etc).

I did really well. I watched a five minute disinfo Youtube clip which told me that the Dark Ages never happened then I posted some hat pictures on Veeky Forums. I am a star pupil.

>I am euphoric in my own intelligence
>My viewpoints are 100% independent from the influence of others and can't be compared to anyone else's
Cringe

I like their non-political videos.

>this reading comprehension
I said others can change my opinions, and have several times in the past. But instead of attaching myself to groups or be loyal to ideas, I go with what seems to work and judge each idea by it's own merits, rather than judging it by it's origin or trying to frame it in an imaginary spectrum.

When I do argue it is to try and convince other of my points, revise my own points or come up with new points, instead of just trying to score points for a team.

>I'm not loyal to my ideas
Weird, and here you are claiming that you came to your own conclusions dialectically

>When I do argue it is to try and convince other of my points, revise my own points or come up with new points, instead of just trying to score points for a team.
>If you have view points, trying to defend yourself is inherently due to in group biases unless you are me
Imagine being this autistic

True. As Amerindian superiority is demonstrated by history, with their higher development rate, there is no other conclusion than kill all eurangutans from America and populate all Americas with Amerindians.

My ideas serve my wants, not the other way around.

I don't excuse myself from my biases, I try to be aware of them, and try not to let them keep from understanding others or try not let them funnel my vision into the arguments I know would work for me and instead try to come up with arguments which would work for these others.

I understand my values are different from the values of others and that mine aren't really more objectively true than theirs, but I can, for instance, point out that the policies implemented by this or that government had outcomes that I expect the other person wouldn't be too happy about. Likewise, when they've pointed out that I was wrong in several specific matters, I reevaluated my position on these. In this matter, I hope that I can cooperate (even if only temporarily) with more people, and find common ground in regards to what specific policies we could support. Because I care about getting stuff done.

>Slate is good
Man, this board is really outing itself as a bunch of moron. We need to do a thread like this like daily.

Look at these faggots getting all butthurt that some people actually genuinely try to form opinions based on the best information they can get and subject their opinions to change if they get better infomation, instead of choosing a team, choosing a set of opinions from a list and then screaming "leftists! rightists!" at each other while spraying spittle everywhere and slapping themselves in the face.

The guy admitted to being a Fascist. He's obviously overdosed on memes long ago.

This makes unsubstantiated assumptions about what I want to get out of my actions. Even if specific groups are less productive (take the elderly, I think this wouldn't be too much of a controversial statement) it doesn't stand to reason that me or most people would be willing or desire to remove them to increase productivity of society. If a person did in fact support such a policy, this person probably wouldn't respond to appeals to human decency anyway, meaning that value-based arguments wouldn't be very effective and that fact-based arguments (most people, including this person, will be elderly if they live long enough) or simply coerce this person into behaving in an acceptable manner (with threats of state violence, for instance).

I'm not a fascist. I'm this guy:

Whoops, I'm not .

>Everyone who recognizes that their beliefs occur modally with other people is inherently biased
This is what you don't understand you absolute anti-dialectical autist

>Look at these faggots getting all butthurt that some people actually genuinely try to form opinions based on the best information they can get and subject their opinions to change if they get better infomation,
Except I'm a fascist an I'm always open to discussion because I didn't just choose my opinions arbitrarily?

Imagine dehumanizing people on a collective basis this badly

>better for humanity
Amerindians had a higher civic and technological development rate compared to europeans.
>decency
Subjectivity which depends in ignorance.
>if a person supports
If a person (me) supports something the state, people who have more power than (me) you, or people who have more knowledge, don't want me to do, then they would do x to avoid this to happen.

Homogeneity, trade, culture influence, social selection and family unit was in a completely better state (as the multiple sourced chronicles and late findings that Rostworowski has published) compared to the current eurangutan mongrel and post-slavery social selection state it is now.

>Supports the idea that America belongs to Amerindians the same way europe belongs to europeans
>you are x!
Hmm...?

>belongs to Amerindians
*Belonged to Amerindians

You were conquered and thus lost your land to a new ethnic, religious, linguistic, and cultural group. Amerindians is also not a unified groups, there are different entire nations of Indians m8, and a lot of the ones that used to have claims over certain lands have died out or miscegenated out of existence

So you support european replacement?

...

No but it's happening whether I like it or not. If someone is going to do something about it, good, but unfortunately for you replacement has already happened for a lot of Amerindians

>no
How?
Don't you support civilization cataclysm?

Dialectical reasoning is supposed to take place with people that disagree with you, user, not circle jerking with people that selected their opinions from the same list as you.

>I'm a fascist
>slaps face repeatedly and sprays spittle everywhere

>better for humanity
Hm? Who are you quoting.
>Subjectivity which depends in ignorance.
What I mean by decency is made clear by the context in which I use the term. By "decency" I obviously mean what we (the people that disagree with this person that wants to remove the elderly) mean when we use the term in common parlay, rather than what this person considers to be "decency".
>If a person (me) supports something the state, people who have more power than (me) you, or people who have more knowledge, don't want me to do, then they would do x to avoid this to happen.
That is painful to read. Yes, people often act in opposition to each other, if that is what you mean. I don't expect that to change. I do expect that this can be played with or repressed in ways that work out for what I feel is best. And I expect there are people with conflicting goals that approach reality in a similar fashion. Who gets their way does relate to how approachable are each of our goals (some are more utopic than others), but it also has to do with who is better at selecting methods and implementing these. Generally, the factions that get closer to achieve their goals don't owe their success so much to their most ideologically pure members, but to the ones that are most shrewd and competent.

As for your other point, even if that were true in the sense that those times were really how you think they were (I don't know if they were how think they were, I am not even sure how you think they were), I may not hold the same goals as you do. I don't know what you consider a better state, and we may disagree about what would be a better state. And while I have little hope that we can come to agree on that, I did have hope we could agree on how to approach politics in a constructive manner (without trying to inject my specific political goals into the discussion) but I fear I'm just being taken for a ride.

Are people confusing me with the guy I was arguing with? I'm not a fascist.

Shit thread. Time to bail.

>Cause of most of the world's strife today
*Success and prosperity

Although the rest is true. Also, most of the time this was done alongside Jews

>Dialectical reasoning is supposed to take place with people that disagree with you, user, not circle jerking with people that selected their opinions from the same list as you.
Except you're , again, assuming I don't talk to people who disagree with me and I only exist as a political opinion due to bias axiomatically.

Which is incorrect

>what I mean
>even if x are y most people think...
That's irrelevant. The methods are unknown to you. The process is unknown to you. The ideology is even unknown to you. Everything is unknown to you. There is only one assumption, as I mentioned earlier, the supremacy of the most development potential civilized ethnic group.
>state
status*
>success and prosperity
Wrong. Amerindian culture made all post-genocide events possible. Amerindian development rate demonstrates Amerindian superiority.

>I'm not a fascists
As a fascist who sees people being accused of fascism who really aren't fascists, a lot of people would call you a fascist

What do you mean methods are unknown to me? Or that ideology is unknown to me? The things I can use to get what I want and the things that I want are the things that matter to me. You even assume that this "supremacy of the most development potential civilized ethnic group" is my goal. What if I amerindians would be building spaceships by now without european influence, but I just prefer europeans over amerindians? How would you convince me to help your cause?

For what? In what way would I be considered a fascist, based on what I posted?

>methods are unknown to me
It's pretty simple. Do you have a goal?

I have several goals, in varying orders of importance, some contingent on my attempts at reaching my other goals being rewarded or punished.

But I'm not sure what you think my goal is in this scenario where amerindians are some sort of supermen.

>supermen
If your frame of reference are europeans, of course you would get that kind of impression.
>i'm not sure what you think
Isn't it obvious? Moral jugdements and all kinds of ethnic comparison leads to the same conclusion. The replacement of europeans in europe and America.

---
The purpose of this "convincement" babble can only lead to ideology contents. As methods, process and circumstances of a project are irrelevant to one's incentives for having a general purpose to act and live.
>goals
You having the goal to do better for humanity would be wiping out europeans from America. You having the goal to support the best civilization potential ethnic group would lead to wiping out europeans from America and replace them with Amerindians.

You having the goal to simply have non-nation scale projects would not interfere with the migration tendencies and self-replacement rate of europeans.

The greater good is Amerindian supremacy in America.
---

In the other hand, you opposing the greater good ideology content, with moral humanitary status quo protection, will only lead to the progressive reduction of european populations in both continents. Leading to the same future, as such ideologies swallowed by people will put politicians which will keep the trend for enough years.

---

>others can change my opinions
This is not the purpose of these posts.
>with what seems to work
I simply made an observation about how Amerindian superiority made it possible how culture spread and family structures, the same as hierarchical organizations put them in a better state and a cycle of meritocracy compared to the post-slavery eurangutan mongrels they are today. "That seemed to work", would be incorrect, as it's more accurate to say, "it worked until eurangutan pestilence killed them all".

>state
Status*

>Moral jugdements and all kinds of ethnic comparison leads to the same conclusion. The replacement of europeans in europe and America.
That is your moral judgement. Even if I accepted your metrics of "development" I may still disagree about what is to be done about this.


>You having the goal to do better for humanity would be wiping out europeans from America.
No, it would be gassing everyone in this thread - seriously, you keep making assumptions about what I think what is best for humanity. Like, when you say greater good you assume that I would consider a high development (according to your metrics) to be that. Why even assume I'm interested in a "cycle of meritocracy" when I could well be a caste-system apologist that believes society would be better if people came to accept their lot in life and that there's no better position to be in that the one you were born for or be a firm believer in "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability". There are so many ways in which we could have fundamental, insurmountable disagreements which don't relate to verifiable facts but to what each one of us values instead. Why don't you accept this?

I mean it's entirely possible that you're responding to your own post because you're a lonely fuck who tries to have a conversations with yourself.

So yes he could be you.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>your
Nope. Unless you count ignorant judgements as valid, of course.
>what is betterment of humanity
The definition of the greater good or betterment of humanity, would have the same characteristics as the industrial revolution, which in a short term ruined thousands of lives, yet the conclusion of Academia puts such event as a step forward for "humanity". What a great concept.
>interested
The cycle of meritocracy is a description of the meritocracy system which was the main relation of the class differences between farmers, nobles and the social selection of better individuals (assuming better individuals are the ones with intelligence potential and warrior like determination).

>making assumptions
The omission of other possibilities implies the irrelevancy of such ideological movements; populations will surely ignore them.
>there are many ways
^
>why don't you accept this
The point of the posts aren't convincing you. The purpose of each one of my posts, is to "red-pill" readers with Amerindian facts, let it be worse for Amerindians or better for them in the short or long term.

isn't* convincing you

Vox, prageru, bill maher and so on, It doesn't matter, they are all youtube channels that pose as educational history media but have a clear political agenda.

i don't care what ideology you support but these people should be the enemy of every Veeky Forumstorian.

This phenomenon is a real problem

This is correct.

>socalists who like communism

Isn't that like how some libertarians like fascism?

>Haha people who don’t agree with me aren’t people
>REEE why are you calling me a Nazi?!

Always feel like i'm talking to deaf ears on this topic though

People who agree with you don't bother to answer.

Poltards and shitposters are the ones who plague the board with quantity over quality.

Yeah i'm starting to notice that

A basic bitch.