but as Sargon sais about liberalism: there are practical contradictions to some principles, which are viable in certain cases.

it may contradict the principle, but as long as you do not stray too far from it, and it is pracical, it is also viable.

I dont make distinction between morality and practicality

It is immoral to tax no matter how "practical" it might be

What I found particularly unsettling in the "We are Deutch" video Soygon talks about in his response, at least back when I first saw it back in the day, was how aggressive the "new Germans" were depicted to be. Especially considering the "backwards, bigoted" enemy were also depicted holding placards with politicians from foreign polities. I specifically remember Hungary and Netherlands.

No, look, when you've identified evil, you've cornered evil, it can't spring up somewhere else, it literally cannot physically manifest anywhere else in the world, because evil is a frail little creature that can only exist in one place. Thus Nazis evil, everyone else good. Unless you're for borders, then you're also evil, which means you're a Nazi. See? It works flawlessly.

I'm for borders but low regulation of them. I guess I am prat evil?

I think Soygon either makes the point you just called out - which makes him a moron, or is making an entirely different point tbh.

Not that Britbongs are immune to evil, but that this particular manifestation of evil wouldn't come very naturally to them because of cultural baggage. Which doesn't mean that others wouldn't.

I didnt watch that vid in entirety I literally fell asleep

It also so fucking boring it doesnt concern me

I actually disagree with Sargon that British people couldn't become Nazis

But not right now, because it requires a few more turnings of the wheel before it can happen

Again, I don;t think he's saying they couldn;t

Oh he sure as hell does

And if he is, then he is an idiot

British people sure as hell can turn to fascism, they arent immune to it

Multiple times he said that it's a uniquely German experience, the British people can't become Nazis because they don't have a "we English" experience, which is an incredibly weird argument (he goes into the language aspects of it, that argument is incredibly strange)

same as Botswanians can turn libertarian if persuaded

Nono he meant Nazism, not fascism

ok, maybe what he means is that if British turn natsoc they will make it into their own unique thing

That would make more sense yeah. In fact I do see "we English" becoming a thing, it's just the progressives that are doing it

It won't be a racial matter, at least not right now

The English are just the Jews of the sea anyway...

who cares tbh?

like I said @Tonight at 11 - DOOM the Germans are a maniacal people.

Well it matters because otherwise Sargon's argument is flawless. He deconstructs Three Arrows' world view so perfectly that he could just as well be holding an ideological mirror to his face.

Nation of zealots

they have the tendency to go off the rails, or concentrate on one single thing to where they follow it to its end conclusion.

which is exactly why I say that we had three murderous ideologies in 100 years.

(gonna repost my response to this video from yesterday, sec)

and which is why I am not sure if we can even live in a democracy, because Germans go off the deep end eventually.

say ur thing ET, I wanna post my wall o text

Sargon rationalizes the German identity crisis by saying they can only be proud of themselves by not being proud. Being proud of not being proud. Because their past haunts them, and it only haunts them because they identify themselves with their forefathers.

also: ofc, Brits can be NaZis. but those are extremely rare for the reasons Sargon stated.

On the topic of Soygon's latest video: "The Validity of Nazi Comparisons - feat. Three Arrows"

First a minor point:
I largely agree, perhaps with the exception that, from a strictly propaganda perspective, Soygon seems to make too big of a deal of English, or indeed Anglo, uniqueness. I understand that more nuance is not strictly necessary to put the point across, but it sounds really bad when he claims that Anglos are just immune to Nazism. Again: I understand that he is not necessarily saying that they are in fact immune to to any and all wrongdoing, but the way he frames the issue does sound like he might, which just opens him to accusations of blinding pride and/or chauvinism. It's just unfortunate to make a good argument, and present it in a way that is open for crude attack.
.

And now for a more "important" point:
When Soygon discusses the "We are Deutch" video, he omits, perhaps to save time, a point that I remember perturbing me the most when I saw the video years ago. Namely that the new ideal German is depicted as gleefully aggressive towards not only the passé, old German "bigot", but also explicitly towards foreigners who disagree with the new German "ordering" of the world. The people who end up being charged by the angry mob of... Liberated (?), degenerate new Germans, hold up placards with the faces of Dutch and Hungarian politicians... The new, Ubermensch is just as validated in his righteous, joyful crusade against other polities and their peoples, as the SS were. Just as long as they do not comply with the German prime directive of the moment. The Germans haven't learned almost anything from what their polity did in the early XXth century. All they learned is that the previous thing they were insanely zealous about was bad. They haven't learned that being insanely zealous about things leads to an inherent sense of moral superiority born of excellence in the chosen temporary madness; and thus to the justification of subjugation of others as, we the Germans have clearly mastered the current zealotry far better then anyone else, which must make us not only inclined to lead the lesser people(s), but bestows on us the moral duty to lead them. And if they disagree, well, we know best anyway, so why would that matter? It's awfully convenient a way to structure your social moral framework, if you're an expansionist empire who's main tactic of expansion is to be direct military force directed at a comparable opponent.
.

N.B. It's similarly convenient to the Anglo pretense of not having any shared responsibility for the actions of one's polity. If an Englishman buys inexpensive produce from a merchant in York, because the Crown supports and defends British trading companies abroad, it is no reason for the simple Englishman to feel bad because of the fact said trading companies' entire purpose of existence is to structure the supply chain so as it is in Britain that prices are low, and abroad that the wages are low. Out of sight, out of mind it is for the English individualist... Seems convenient for a merchant Empire...

voila

Dude, you're killing the conversation lul

Enjoy not reading it!