Is Lauren Southern's book worth the read?

If you catch my drift

Any booktards here? I wanna beat your ass

Those damn barbarians are at it again

Don't you know the Roman Republic was destroyed by vile Scythian Barbarians led by Vladimirus Putinus? Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

im kind of a /pol/tard but i hate this dumb broad

shes gavin mcinnes-tier: just in it for the fame/$

I just read the first page, and it reads like an advertisement mocking progressives and selling the Rebel Media (TM) ideology.

>endorsed by Ann Coulter, Stefan Molyneux, and Gavin McInnes

I'm gonna go ahead and so no, it's not worth the read.

I want to destroy her vagina

The reason she's so uppity is because she doesn't have any children.

>Her book is an argument
-steban moblymeme

>21 years old
>time to fix the world with my hot opinions
Bless the ghost writer orbiter, I hope he at least got to bang her for that

>hot young sluts who hate boomers, muslims and immigrants

Oui.

Does Stefan Molyneux really associate with these people? I have never watched his videos or read anything by him. Is he a libertarian or a pop philosopher?

Buying the ban before the liberals book it desu

>tfw no lauren gf

>Ann Coulter rules. If more women were like her, feminism wouldn't be a faggy crying competition for menstruating retards.
Coulter is a 55 year old bitter childless woman, is she really the model the nu-right want emulated?

Numale right are a bunch of literal faggots and degenerates. What else is new.

i like ann coulter. she's well-educated and has been on this shit for years.

i dont like southern, milo, mcinnes, shapiro, watson, or jones. theyre all mostly retarded and just picked this shit up recently. Milo is the smartest one and he's a GG weenie whose shekels dried up with the death of the movement.

shes not even pretty. did she ever release her dna test results? i doubt shes pure western european.

She's quite pretty though

And who cares about dna testing? That's for autistic neckbeards on stormfront

I don't know who he associates with. He's an anarcho-capitalist and somehow a Trump supporter. There's a rather strange bombastic endorsement by him in Lauren's book.

I guess it was a stupid question but thank you for answering.
>He's an anarcho-capitalist and somehow a Trump supporter. There's a rather strange bombastic endorsement by him in Lauren's book.
He's a meme then. Just as I thought.

All ancaps are memes

Fascism is the Truth.

>Fascism is the Truth.
I thought fascism is built on faith in an idealized world not the truth.

Fascism is Science applied to Humans.

Science like physics or theology?

>He's an anarcho-capitalist and somehow a Trump supporter.

He's probably doing the same thing as a lot of fringe right movements where they side with whatever anti-estabishment movement is popular at the time. Murray Rothbard aligned himself with both the New Left to oppose the Vietnam War and then later with Pat Buchanan in the 90's. This was mostly because he hoped that it would shift the Overton Window in directions that would make his ideas more palatable to the public (the New Left would move things in a more anti-intervention, anarchistic direction in many respects, while the Paleocon would focus more on property rights and non intervention as well.) In the case of Rothbard, one can't really parse out the people he would vote for/hang around with/support to actually get a good grasp of all of his views, since he was very focused on certain issues when he did things. He voted for LBJ because he was afraid that Goldwater would start a nuclear war. Autists like Hoppe (no disrespect to the work he did, just to Hoppe's views.) misread his paleocon and right-wing populism stuff as anything more than strategy.

What this has to do with Molyneux is that Molyneux is either: 1.) Aping Rothbard and supporting Trump to hopefully deal with issues that he thinks might be big, like war since Trump is relatively anti-intervention. 2.) Scoping around the Alt-Right/NRx to scan for new potential targets to convert, that is assuming Molyneux is actually an Ancap anymore, which I'm not even sure of. Or 3.) (The most likely) Molyneux is a retarded, uncurious, and uneducated "philosopher" and a general embarrassment in his continued descent into the Libertarian YouTube equivalent of a Rush Limaugh figure.

In all honesty, the baby boomer part I get, but as far as immigrants and Islam, "screwing her generation" what is actually the argument? Like, I'm genuinely curious what the argument for that is. Has anyone actually read this who can tell me what she says?

I am no fan of Islam, but to say Islam has helped "screw her generation"... how? Is she alluding to wars in the middle east against Islamists being fought by her generation?

As for immigrants, I'm also curious about her argument. Legal immigrants in the US are generally high earning professionals. First and second gen Indian Americans are the highest earning ethnic group on average in the US. Nigerians are also very high earning.. both are prominent in medical fields. To say legal immigrants are not contributing to our country is pretty asinine. And I fail to see how they are screwing any generation.

As for illegals, I assume the argument is that her generation is paying for their welfare so that's screwing them? If so, she does have a point. My heart doesn't bleed for illegals who are deported or are under threat of deportation, but at the end of the day they work McJobs and the uncomfortable reality is that they contribute massively to unskilled labor in the US.

This all reeks of reactionary clickbait, but again, I am genuinely curious about her arguments.

>Molymeme

Ha. Also, he claims to advocate very limited to no government and the NAP, but is also a colonialism apologist.

>And who cares about dna testing?
She does, apparently.

You're missing the point.

The issue isn't that they don't contribute, but that the native population is being displaced and it's destroying the culture of the USA.

This is why there's massive racial tensions. Humans are naturally tribal creatures and society is a reflection of our most basic urges.

>that the native population is being displaced and it's destroying the culture of the USA

1) The ironing

2) Prove it. Hispanics are fucking apeshit about American culture AND they tend to vote Republican when the candidate for their district isn't openly advocating for mass deportation.

She's not even an American....

Isn't Molyneux a literal cult leader? Whose ideology encourages people to never talk to their families again if they disagree? Who charges his followers tons of money per month to get into his "inner circle"?

>Age 21

Fucking hell I need to be doing more shit

I'm kind into Lauren Southern, Milo, Ben and all that but but genuinely looks like a white supremacist book

Terrible title

>prove it
how about the shifting demographics?

You're completely ignoring the importance of Race.

>the native population is being displaced and it's destroying the culture of the USA

If I were a snarky lib I could jump all over that one.

But of course we're talking about the US as a recognized sovereign country, which native Americans had no hand in the founding of really (although some tribes helped with the revolution).

The "native" population of the United States is, when it comes down to it, largely English whites and west Africans. Those are the two groups that you could say were "native" to the United States at the time of its founding and recognition, they and they alone have been there since the beginning.

The biggest racial tension in America is between the two "native" groups.

So what is she arguing, "if only we hadn't brought slaves into the country we founded?" I wouldn't disagree with her.

I'm not sure what SHE is arguing but yes I would agree and say Slavery was completely wrong.

>You're completely ignoring the importance of Race.

How so? That largest immigrant group in the US, currently, is Latino/Hispanics, i.e. non-whites. As I said, they tend to assimilate quite readily and happily, and they also tend to vote conservatively.

>and they also tend to vote conservatively.
you don't know what you're talking about

>Prove it.

Not him, but it is happening in the EU for sure.

Sweden took in some 190000 refugees in 2016, and accounting for the fact that they are a population of 9 million, that's equivalent to the U.S taking something like 20 million refugees in one year.

He hopped on the white power train to appeal to the /pol/ audience.

I wonder if we could imagine a type of slavery that was morally correct

We are talking about the US.

I guess we don't hear much about the Arab slave trade or the fact that Africans sold their people into slavery...

It's only talked about that the white devil did it all

Look at state and local elections, not national. When Republicans drop the anti-immigrant schtick they win the Latino vote.

Yeah, and you have something like 11 million illegal people in your country.

Well Leftists don't concentrate on that for obvious reasons, and weren't they the same sort of thing anyway? But just as an intellectual exercise, can we justify the total erasure of personal agency

>tfw this is the standard of intellectual thought nowadays when we had the enlightenment and thinkers such as david hume and locke

Really makes ya think

>Yeah, and you have something like 11 million illegal people in your country.
we need to legalize people man
*smokes blunt*

Most people consider wage slavery and animal slavery to be just fine.

It's in the interests of the globabl elite to promote longform shitposts like this book in order to discourage anyone intelligent and dignified from entering into the debate. That's probably one of the reasons Zizek is so gross.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Or rather everyone is exploiting everyone without any sincerity purely for economic gain.

>mfw I realize Marx was right

really makes ya think dont it

No, you don't. Many Hispanics, being deeply religious, are opposed to many social positions of the left. Cuban Americans are generally pretty right wing. Legal Mexicans are also right in large numbers. A plurality of Hispanics are left wing, but it is a very split demographic, unlike blacks for example.

What shits me the most about the people who worry about the growing Hispanic population is that they clearly have no concept of history.

Guys: there was a fucking against Mexico. Mexico ceded a bunch of shit to us that used to belong to it. It used to be Mexico. There were Mexicans there.

"Omg, look at all these Hispanics in California!"

Yeah, no shit? You can't just fight a war against Mexico and take the shit that used to be theirs and then complain about the Hispanic population in those areas that used to be fucking Mexico. If the US had let Mexico keep those territories the Hispanic population of the United States would be much lower today.

illegal people man
*hits blunt*

**War against mexico.

Marx is really not the first person to question aspects of capitalism. He's just the only one that had a pseudo-religion founded in his name.

Anarcho-capitalism isn't a real ideology. Its supporters will always reveal themselves to just be like any other member of the Authoritarian Right when push comes to shove.
Ideology isn't about opinions and logic, that's an illusion. We tell ourselves it's the case but the reality is ideology is subconscious.

>Marx is really not the first person to question aspects of capitalism.
Was Adam Smith the first?

I think you've got it the wrong way. It's like this:

>"We're all just people maaaaaaan, borders aren't real maaaan" *smokes blunt*

I'm guessing this is you.

>He's just the only one that had a pseudo-religion founded in his name.
You're forgetting Saint-Simonianism

>Report submitted! This window will close in 3 seconds...

The problem is that mexicans were 1.4% of the population in 1940, today they are over 16%. That means that there were next to no ethnic mexicans living in the southwest. We can't make these assumptions based on 200 year old territorial "muh clay" arguments.

I just thought it was funny, and lazy, to call someone illegal. Like you could pass a law outlawing being Mexican.

Illegal immigrants is different than illegal people.

Well, maybe I misspoke. But they are illegal immigrants.

And it's fine if you're okay with that, just know that it's not like everyone is okay with that.

>That's probably one of the reasons Zizek is so gross.

Why do you think you're posting here and not on some reddit style forum where we all make giant two page long explications each post?
Its because you don't see analytic debate as worthwhile. You know truth in a social context is just the expenditure of resources on any given side to overpower the other in rhetoric and superficial legitimacy.

Shitposting is just the purest form of dialectical exchange. The rest is bullshit

Why are right wing women so much more attractive Veeky Forums?