Grand

Most likely, it will end with the death of current modern leftism, and quite a lot of blood split. If you look at the Islamic religion, you'll notice several things about it 1 - It is a blueprint for a society, a society envisioned by an individual who created it (Muhammed). It is a terrible society, not only wrought with economic, moral and civil rights issues and inequality but also with extreme limitations on what progress could ever possibly be made, but it IS a society that won't fold in on itself. That sets it apart from Communist economic systems, which are made solely to take root in Capitalist society and strangle the capitalism out of them. Once that has been achieved, there is no progression, there is no societal shift. It just sits there and self implodes, because the purpose of Communism has been achieved. Communism is NOT a blue print for a society. 2 - The Islamic society preaches "peace", through conquest. The mindset of the Islamic militant is "there will be peace, when all my enemies are dead or have come over to worship Allah". That is peace only by the definition of Islam, and their tenants all reflect this. Their conquest tactics are literally built into the religion. First they migrate, then they secure land inside enemy territory, then they "influence" the will of Allah on the country. They convert as many people as are willing, then they kill all the rest and anyone who converted but isn't Islam enough. Their faith is their weapon, because their holy book describes to them that what they are doing is actually bringing peace to the unfaithful. Like it literally says that death is preferable to a life without Allah. 3 - Islam's religious text generally says that everyone who is a follower of Allah has the protections of Allah, and anyone who harms or wrongs them will bring upon themselves the wrath of Allah. The unfaithful, however, have no such protections and you can literally do whatever you want to them. This is how one could legally murder their neighbor in any Islamic state, you simply accuse him of blasphemy. This makes it VERY easy to cut ties with mooks who have served their usefulness. Now, the reason this is important is because a LOT of the left have become just obsessed with this idea that they NEED to help people. The problem with that is their idea of "Help" is twisted and perverted. Members of the left have become arrogant and disillusioned, and convinced themselves that anyone who is not white is inferior to them and needs their help to become successful. Their skill, intelligence, ambition and wealth mean nothing next to their skin color to the left. However, this isn't something that the ENTIRE left believes, but a significant portion certainly does. They are literally letting the killer in, and then giving him a loaded gun so that he can kill them. Consequently they will be the first ones to go, Islamists will justify their actions by claiming that the people they are murdering are all infidels, that we westerners simply don't believe in Allah (which again, is supposedly WORSE than being dead.) and then they'll start killing. They'll meet strong resistance from everyone who isn't a leftist, and even then quite a number of leftists will realize what's going on and abandon their ideology in favor of survival. That civil war you talked about will happen, but it'll go slightly differently. Islam is not a cohesive functioning state, it's very loose and poorly organized. They literally cannot infiltrate and take over so many states at once, but they CAN cause significant amounts of damage in them before they get forced back to the other side of the Muslim blockade. They will kill the SJW's, in all honesty. SJW's will be the people closest to them, and so Islam will start with the SJW's. Plus, let's be real, any SJW near an Islamic militant is so clearly not a follower of the deity that thinks showing your ankles is a sin worth dying over that no Islamic militant will think twice about just killing them. We haven't reached that point, but we will, it's a natural part of the Islamic life cycle. What's going on in the UK today, is exactly what went on in the city of Macca before Muhammad took it over. Islam is following Muhammad's playbook, but it's severely out dated. When we do reach that point, it'll signal the death of the left. Islam has NEVER spread this far before, even during the crusades. There won't be anyone in the west who doesn't get the message when it finally does happen, and seeing first hand how far the Left has fallen, and what it's values have brought, will cause the pendulum to swing back with immeasurable force. What was once the left will change, but into what I have no idea. And then the Muslims will be easily pushed back, as I already said they are NOT organized in any capacity to fight and take over the European population, and once this starts going down there will be no one to protect Islam in the west. They've been shielded by our willingness to adhere to our own laws, they technically haven't committed a crime yet. The real question is going to be "How much blood must be shed?". In all honesty, we have no way to predict how many people will initially die, or how well the west will respond to it. Maybe they'll be slow to respond, and not only a lot of SJW's but also significant numbers of other citizens. Maybe they'll respond quick, and only some of the SJW's will be killed.

Not particularly. The thing is, even with how many people they've pulled into their delusions, there are just that many more who refused to be pulled into said delusions. The thing about the ivory tower is that, sure when you look through it's windows everything appears to be rose colored, but that's only from the INSIDE. When viewed from the outside, it is seen from the perspective of the common man, who normally would see it as a gigantic, spectacular and flamboyant thing all to heavily detached from reality. The people who hold these views are INCREDIBLY self destructive and volatile, and this is something that they impart onto their students. This also means that they inevitably end up pushing away anyone who is in any way not completely enthralled by their fluffy rhetoric, as they are following part of a dogma that necessitates them completely removing all dissent. The thing about echo chambers, is that when you force everyone else outside of yours except the other people who like that chamber... All you've done is put all of those people you snubbed into the bigger space. The space outside the chamber is phenomenally larger than the space inside the chamber, and this counts for metaphorical echo chambers as well. The process they've used to indoctrinate students is, ironically enough, effectively immunizing scores more students from their BS. For that reason I don't think there is any real threat from them. I think they can cause some significant harm, like I honestly think they've set civil rights back by several decades already, but I don't see them being any real threat to civilization in the long run.

The answer was in your question mate. The platform they are on is YouTube, and YouTube is owned by Google. Google is actively attempting to censor, silence and shut down anyone who holds such opinions as someone like Sargon, and thus simply "using the platform as free speech" is inherently impossible. One can come as close as they can without getting deleted, and that is what they are doing, and even then it still doesn't work as many of them are getting banned, blacklisted, shadowbanned, demonetized and the such simply for having that opinion, regardless of how strongly they speak out about it. It's easy for someone like you or me to say "If they don't do what they say needs to be done, it can be assumed their is some negative consequence which outweighs that which they say needs to be done, ie, being called a Nazi or hassled by YouTube, whatever" because neither of us make our living from YouTube. And to point out why you see them being against war, that's because an inherent part of Libertarian values is the "Non-Aggression Principle". It is pretty fundamental that Libertarian individuals generally hold that violence should be avoided, and you should always try to find a solution to a problem that does not involve violence. This is also the most un-achievable thing in a Libertarian system, as there isn't an answer to the question of "How do you enforce a non-aggression pact?" that doesn't involve having violence at the ready to meet violence. Since Libertarians try to approach problems as if violence was not an option, they generally find themselves trying to avoid wars, and usually this is seen as a very noble endeavor. And certainly, it is noble, I'd just argue that it's highly unrealistic unless someone figures out how to invent super-giga-death robots that will force us into non-aggression a la "The Day The Earth Stood Still". You could say that the reason that they always talk about it, is BECAUSE there is no good answer yet.

Fortunately, I think the people attempting to do that are an exceptional minority even among SJW's and the current left. I mean shit, Charitable Humans completely denounced their ENTIRE social media presence based on that one tweet, and CNN actually condemned AntiFa afterwards because the backlash was SOOOOO massive. And yeah it's pretty bad down there, we're getting hit by some of the rain all the way up here in Grapevine. My security agency is already making food packages and opened donations for the relief efforts, and at least 10 of my co-workers from my site got to go down after enough of us expressed interest in lending manpower. Y'all keep going mate, the storm can't last forever.

It's not really "Abandoning higher education" it's more removing the power you've given to an increasingly malevolent organization. One does not need university for anything other than credentials, you can only get a bachelors degree by going to university. You can get a higher education, however, by simply READING BOOKS. Become educated. For example, legal matters. Sure someone with a legal degree can be expected to have higher than normal knowledge on legal matters, but there is nothing that stops the average Joe from just reading the laws, legal concepts and definitions on his own. So no, this is exactly like voting for your self esteem when the academy is trying to tell you that you need to vote for theirs.

You know, my room mate and I had a conversation last year with a friend of my room mate who lives in Germany, and the entire definition of terms such as "Conservative", "Progressive" and "Liberal" are entirely different in Europe compared to how they are currently defined in the states, so the definitions are also different based on location. IIRC Europe tends to view "Progressive" and "Liberal" in a more economical sense? Perhaps someone from Europe could clarify as I only vaguely remember the conversation I'd had.

It's simple: You are not trying to have a conversation on the topic, as your argument is rife with inaccuracy, falsities and sophistry. Your argument is made entirely of highly inaccurate generalizations, of both the sweeping and hasty variety. You have a very particular view of Libertarianism and Anarchy, and you seem to be functioning on the level that this must be the one true form of Libertarianism and anyone who does not follow it is "making the wrong choice". Your opinion is quite literally identity politics, which is why it is so weak. The comment points out that you will not find sympathy from people here, nor will you find mercy. People here are going to deliver clear, concise and well reasoned arguments, and they are going to do so to the fullest capacity they can. A weak argument such as yours, which is to be blunt trolling, is simply going to get dominated here, so it makes more sense for you to simply leave now before that happens. TL'DR he's saying that you're a moron and just going to get butt hurt, so you should just leave now and save yourself the trouble.

Uh. Just felt I should point out that Facebook isn't owned by google. Facebook actually hates google. Like. A lot. While certainly, I would be exceptionally careful about putting your information through Facebook, it simply won't affect your goal to de-googlefy yourself.

Society is simply a larger construct of a tribe, mate. Every "social grouping" tends to occur from survival. Ancient humans decided to "group" together in the name of survival, because a group of humans is a much stronger force than any single human or animal. The same thing applies to modern society, just in less barbaric or violent ways. If you go to a job, are you going to actively avoid becoming acquainted with your co-workers? Probably not, because doing so puts you at a disadvantage compared to the other co-workers, who all know each other and have formed a group. They are more willing to lend aid to and defend each other than they would be for you, because you are the outsider compared to them being part of the group. If people only ever grouped up with others who hold the same strict beliefs, there wouldn't be any society as large as those today. People group together, as ofd said, based on DNA. People are going to actively seek to be with other people. Whether or not they actively aim to group with people of one particular race or to exclude one particular race is dependent entirely upon circumstance and context. I'll give you an example: I'm a white guy who lives in Grapevine. I live in an area that's fairly diverse with a fairly low crime rate, there are people of various racial and ethnic groups and with various opinions, but the majority is white. About 20 miles from where I live is a city called Oakcliff, which has an exceptionally high crime rate and is majority Hispanic. Now on the surface that says very little, but with the context of experience in both of those cities, I as a white guy would actively be avoiding Hispanics in Oakcliff, and I'm just not going to Oakcliff at all if I'm alone or it's close to evening. There is a very strong resentment directed at whites in many Hispanic members of the community there, and it's fairly well known. This has very little to do with DNA, it has to do with the context surrounding the population of a specific area. If I was not shown any particular hostility, or if I'm not in Oakcliff, then I'm not going to have very much preference for who I end up "grouping" with beyond their actions, their skin color will have very little if any effect on it. Most people function on this level, they are going to simply group with "other people" who are not actively trying to kill them, or who give them an advantage. It doesn't have to be as radically similar as "We both like the same sky wizard" or "we both think weed should be legalized", we can have entirely different morals and opinions so long as those morals and opinions are not directly abrasive to each other. The reason Feminism, Islam and other hot button social groupings are causing so much trouble for everyone is because of how seriously radical and extreme they are. It's also why they are inevitably self destructing.