Are you racist because of your bleached kink?

Corma said:

False, I was speaking about pensions. If you look in my country, the PROPORTION of the salary that goes for pension never ceased to grow. What matters isn't the fact people pay more for everything, it's the fact that IN PROPORTION people pay more for pensions given that the government can't just print magically money to pay pensions.

And you missed my point. It isn't something unique about pensions. All government spending has continued to increase. And yes actually a lot of that spending is payed for by printed money. Barely any government runs a balanced budget these days. So pensions are payed for by printed money, and that has continued to increase, too.

You still didn't quote any book so that I can read into it. But still, it's not some sort of secret elite, it's a slow change in culture coming from marxists and communists. Also, there are so many authors and people predicting things, of course out of 100 books at least 1 will be correct. I remember a woman predicted in the 2000s that a respiratory virus would spread in the year 2020. Does that mean she knew about some sort of conspiracy linked to covid ?

There were people that actually did predict covid because obviously people knew they were working on gain of function research on sars virus. Idk if the lady you mentioned was one of them, though. Regardless, that is besides the point. You are acting like culture and laws just magically change. No people get together and decide what laws and society aspects to change and then they implement them. You can call those people a group of marxist or communists, and i wouldnt really even disagree either. They are ant-white though.

Correlation isn't causation my friend. The laws surrounding immigrants weren't the same in the 50s and 60s when migrant workers came in Germany and France vs now, so there HAS been a change and YES, that can happen to Japan to, as it happened to Western Europe.

Once again, laws don't just magically change, people with power make that happen.

Once again, who cares about whether they keep increasing or they decrease ? The importance is the ratio. The ratio will stay fixed at some point to a catastrophic level in which a society cannot function properly and cannot grow economically, it still doesn't solve the issue. Why do you think the far-left is urging white people not to have children ? Because it will make the economy decline, which is, it is true, ecological, but not what's best for society.

And you somehow know the magical ratio it has to be above at huh? sure.
I dont get your second point. Yea the far left wants less white people but the far left also wants more non-whites hence the mass immigration.

Even without feminism women would have started working and the countries would have needed more workforce. There are street interviews in Japan (Tokyo) where most young women don't even know what feminism is, well guess what ? Regardless, they have to work. Because Japan needs more workforce. Women having more right and becoming more independent is also due to technology, not only feminism.
Everything is super affordable in Japan because of the dramatically low birth rates and lack of immigration (as you said for the latter), which isn't a good thing for society once again. There are ghosts town in Japan partly because of that. Having a positive consequence due to a bigger major negative phenomenon isn't something we should praise or be happy about.

Japan's government is very feminist because it was literally imposed on them after their defeat it doesnt matter what a normie woman on the street thinks it's called, and their society continues to uphold it because it's the way of liberal countries. Women got more "rights" if you want to call it that, in japan because we literally wrote their constitution for them and one of the first things we made sure is to give their women the right to vote. That wasnt "technology" that was called losing a war. You can have technology and no feminism, see certain Muslim countries(but yes some muslim countries have feminism too).

If your propositions are ending the welfare as you suggested, good luck in your fight my friend, but we will not let you do it.

Who is we? most people on the right support ending welfare, and dregs on welfare are clients, they have no power. Unless the we you are referring to are the elites in power, ur posturing is pointless.

Okay I understand your point now, but I still disagree with the fact most of the ruling elite don't genuinely believe in what they say. Some of them are becoming more right-wing in France i.e. as they are starting to be impacted by their own politics. I think most of them truly believe in left-wing ideology but are just highly hypocritical in their life choices. And most of the ruling elite don't have private islands lmao.

Im sure there are French people against leftist policies, just like how most people are against them in many countries. France is pretty much just a vassal though, so im not sure what that matters. The globalists will do what they want with france. They dont even have gun rights. France's only hope is that the counter elite in usa decide to take over the country and make it right wing, then the vassals of the USA will follow.

What does the right proposes concretely that is not just being against left-wing policies ? Or going back to the past in some aspects ? I only see identitarians and right-wing occidentalists doing that, which are highly marginalized among the right.
I don't know much about the history of the US because (thanks god) I never even put the foot in this country, but from what I see in Western Europe, although the left sometimes doesn't have the support of the majority, they succeed in having the support of a big minority, which makes it possible for their laws to pass. They do wage a metapolitical / cultural war to rally at least a big minority and, slowly, most people end up agreeing with them because the right is just in the opposition for conservative reasons, not for proposing an alternative vision of the future (see homosexual marriage, interracial marriage, segregation, etc).

I think you got that backwards there tbh. Most of the left's policies are the ones that are just anti-right wing. Most all leftist policies come down to dismantling things right wing values and societies uphold or support, whether it be patriarchy, nuclear families, or "whiteness". As for the european majority, they are mostly the same way they usualy have been. Socially right wing but economicly left wing. Even the most cucked euro countries like UK still have the majority against mass immigration.

Tell me who is behind the use of technology ? "technology using them" but who controls technology ? If there was genetic engineering, who would control that ?

Most of genetic engineering in the future will be likely down to computers, so it would be computers that are selecting humans to "serve" them. (serve in the way an ant serves the queen, not in a human sense just liek how the queen created the workers). And no it has nothing to do with whether AI will be "Evil" in the future or not, it's just as i stated basic evolution and natural selection which you cant run from. The computers that offer worse genetic engineering for them will be replaced by the ones that offer better ones, basic selection. Im sure some humans owning megacorps would also be the ones offering genetic plans so they will also be the second group people would be artificially selected to serve. After all the better workers for megacorp inc gets more money and therefore can afford more generically engineered kids, just like the farmer gives the fatter pig more offspring since it serves his interest.

You really think Germany wasn't expecting for some war to happen at some point ? After all of the provocations made by Hitler ? Of course there was propaganda against french people and France. Just look at how the nazis viewed french people (and slavs as well). You really think nazis weren't anti-french ? Lmao, basic history in Western Europe taught in schools, citing historians, tell us that yes, they OBVIOUSLY were anti-french (and anti-slavs as you mentioned). So OFC they made propaganda against France and the french to justify what would eventually happen to France.

The french were considered aryans by the nazis, idk what you are talking about. Yes after they declare war on Germany then they have to ramp up more anti-french sentiment obviously. And no, hitler wasnt actually all that wise. He honestly believed the other "aryan nations" would side with him over the Bolsheviks, including to the point of being naïve enough to send his best friend to personally negotiate peace with the British, who of course the British just immediately arrested and locked in jail until his death. The most stupid thing hitler did was go on about how the jews and leftists subverted the western countries, then still some how believed they would not get in his way. Maybe he thought Czechoslovakia was proof the west would side with him.

Ah ouaaaaais, c'est chaud là. How can I even argue with that, you're obviously making links on things that don't have links and saying half-truths. I remember in school some countries were selling equipment to countries that were enemies, which don't mean they weren't enemies anymore smh. Stalin a russian nationalist ? BAHAHAHA. I'm not even going to try to fact-check what you said about the CIA and modern art because I have better things to do than pass tenths of minutes on the internet checking for that.
Ehhh ? Literally there was McCarthyism and people FEARED and HATED communism in the West. The movies all depicted communists as the mean people we should fight. Propaganda in the West was anti-communist because we were in a cold war against communism. Wth are you even saying ??????????''

Did you miss my whole explanation of why they started being anti-communist after ww2? And McCarthy goes against ur point. he was seen as a crazy right winger, even though it was shown that he was right. So much so the CIA even tried setting McCarthy up. IDK what you learned in school, but we learned McCarthy was an example of an idiot.

Why did the people in power change ? Because the left won the metapolitical war in universities and their ideas spread as a consequence in the schools and medias.
Once again, everything is about metapolitical wars.

You keep saying metapolitcal but you dont really explain what you mean. If you mean all the people funding and controlling the universities wanted to push their policies and kick right wingers out, then sure, but that's my point. Wealthy elites decide the rules of institutions and society, just like now how they were fine with BLM rioters, but anti-israel protesters arent going to be tolerated on colleges.

Okay continue with your timorous POV believing the AI will not help humanity make big progress. But just think about political strategy : if you want to rally young people to right-wing ideology, you have to make them hyped about the future and sell them a bright progressive future. That's how the youth always worked since forever. Left-wingers understood that and that's why the youth votes for the left. The right is just blocked in its old way of presenting things and its old conservative and regressive ideology. Stop using rationality all the time and start being hyped about the future please.

The youth is leftist because the youth is non-white. If anything zoomer white men are more right wing than boomers. What future does the left sell? it screams about the racist and bigoted past then offers living in a pod and eating bugs while cooming to porn. Who is convinced by that future? And once again im not anti AI im just saying people are just being fantastical about it, just like how people in the early 20th century thought in the year 2000 we would have flying cars and space colonies.

The fact young people decreasingly want to work is a big problem that will make society either need more migrants or more babies. And I prefer the latter obviously. Same for Japan.

Or actually it says that current societies policies and direction is messed up so young people have no motivation to uphold a destructive and sick society that disparages them. I see no issue there since it's true. Maybe if enough young people quit working there will actually be some change.

Are you racist because of your bleached kink or you have a bleacher kink because you are racist?

Sky_JimothyWorld said:

Are you racist because of your bleached kink or you have a bleacher kink because you are racist?

Right, let's get back on topic.

if anything, it's made me less racist. especially when you take a long look at Bleached and raceplay in general and realize for a lot of people, it is their BDSM kink mixing with their own feelings about the shifting landscape of racial relations. at least that's true for me. I enjoy bleached content, as well as its more melanin heavy counterpart.

And you missed my point. It isn't something unique about pensions. All government spending has continued to increase. And yes actually a lot of that spending is payed for by printed money. Barely any government runs a balanced budget these days. So pensions are payed for by printed money, and that has continued to increase, too.

You still didn't answer my question but okay.

There were people that actually did predict covid because obviously people knew they were working on gain of function research on sars virus. Idk if the lady you mentioned was one of them, though. Regardless, that is besides the point. You are acting like culture and laws just magically change. No people get together and decide what laws and society aspects to change and then they implement them. You can call those people a group of marxist or communists, and i wouldnt really even disagree either. They are ant-white though.

Okay now it's clear at least, you are a conspiracy theorist

Once again, laws don't just magically change, people with power make that happen.

Yes and they gain the support of the population by waging a metapolitical war (not just them but people sharing the same ideology)

And you somehow know the magical ratio it has to be above at huh? sure.
I dont get your second point. Yea the far left wants less white people but the far left also wants more non-whites hence the mass immigration.

Population replacement rate is at around 2.08 in Western countries, it's what you need to maintain the same population (no increase nor decrease) in the scenario of no immigration nor emigration, that's why I took this number.
My point is that the far-left is urging white people not to have children under the guise of ecology, because the far-left wants the economy to decline for ecological reasons and they know damn well if people have less children the economy will decrease.

Japan's government is very feminist because it was literally imposed on them after their defeat it doesnt matter what a normie woman on the street thinks it's called, and their society continues to uphold it because it's the way of liberal countries. Women got more "rights" if you want to call it that, in japan because we literally wrote their constitution for them and one of the first things we made sure is to give their women the right to vote. That wasnt "technology" that was called losing a war. You can have technology and no feminism, see certain Muslim countries(but yes some muslim countries have feminism too).

Wtf are you talking about, Japan feminist ? LMAO. They are one of the most traditional societies in all of the first-world countries.
Oh so now you're taking one example not necessarily linked to the advance in technology to try and disprove my entire claim ? What about the fall of primary sector jobs for tertiary sector jobs ? That was due to technology and we needed more workforce (so yes, women included).
Are you really saying muslim countries are as advanced technologically as the West ? I am so glad to live in the West and not a muslim country because obviously the west is way more advanced than muslim countries (technology included). And the more muslim countries get access to technology, the more women want to be emancipated from the strict patriarchy imposed by muslim men, which is perfectly normal. Why should they be imposed to wear an islamic veil ? Why can't they vote ?

Who is we? most people on the right support ending welfare, and dregs on welfare are clients, they have no power. Unless the we you are referring to are the elites in power, ur posturing is pointless.

Maybe in the US, my perspective is from Western Europe. And I doubt most people in the US would accept that too. By "we", I meant people opposed to it.

Im sure there are French people against leftist policies, just like how most people are against them in many countries. France is pretty much just a vassal though, so im not sure what that matters. The globalists will do what they want with france. They dont even have gun rights. France's only hope is that the counter elite in usa decide to take over the country and make it right wing, then the vassals of the USA will follow.

Most french people are against leftist policies from 2024, but not from 1964. What percentage will be against the leftist policies of 2024 in 2084 if the right continues to lose the cultural battle ?
I don't think France necessarily needs the US although it would be a great help. They put themselves in that situation all alone, they can change the culture in their country alone as well.

I think you got that backwards there tbh. Most of the left's policies are the ones that are just anti-right wing. Most all leftist policies come down to dismantling things right wing values and societies uphold or support, whether it be patriarchy, nuclear families, or "whiteness". As for the european majority, they are mostly the same way they usualy have been. Socially right wing but economicly left wing. Even the most cucked euro countries like UK still have the majority against mass immigration.

False and true. False because the left's policies are not just being anti-right-wing, they are about proposing a NEW FUTURE, different from societies of their time. They want a future where man has no more limits and distinctions : is mixed-race, asexuated, pacified, apolitical and is not limited nor defined by any social norms (nor biological realities). And all of their measures go towards a more mixed-race society, a society where men and women are always less differentiated, where war and imposing your wish through force (if you're the Occident) is seen as inherently bad, where there is no distinction between sexual orientations, etc. This is the future they are proposing and imposing (because the right just says yes but they are wrong / it's bad for society. OKAY but then propose something else if you want to rally people to your cause).
European societies are socially far-left for the 1960s standard, so I wholeheartedly disagree with your stance. And once again if the right continues to lose the cultural war, the European society of the future will be even more far-left than it already is, although the majority will remain conservative (meaning they just don't want the changes to happen too quickly).
You really think the stance of most british people today that answer they are against mass migration is the same as the ones in the 60s ? Yes they are in majority against mass migration but can we really call that a right-wing discourse for lots of them when looking at the arguments ?

Most of genetic engineering in the future will be likely down to computers, so it would be computers that are selecting humans to "serve" them. (serve in the way an ant serves the queen, not in a human sense just liek how the queen created the workers). And no it has nothing to do with whether AI will be "Evil" in the future or not, it's just as i stated basic evolution and natural selection which you cant run from. The computers that offer worse genetic engineering for them will be replaced by the ones that offer better ones, basic selection. Im sure some humans owning megacorps would also be the ones offering genetic plans so they will also be the second group people would be artificially selected to serve. After all the better workers for megacorp inc gets more money and therefore can afford more generically engineered kids, just like the farmer gives the fatter pig more offspring since it serves his interest.

Speculation, speculation, speculation. You don't know the future in advance but present it as a fact.

The french were considered aryans by the nazis, idk what you are talking about. Yes after they declare war on Germany then they have to ramp up more anti-french sentiment obviously. And no, hitler wasnt actually all that wise. He honestly believed the other "aryan nations" would side with him over the Bolsheviks, including to the point of being naïve enough to send his best friend to personally negotiate peace with the British, who of course the British just immediately arrested and locked in jail until his death. The most stupid thing hitler did was go on about how the jews and leftists subverted the western countries, then still some how believed they would not get in his way. Maybe he thought Czechoslovakia was proof the west would side with him.

The french were not considered as aryans, they were considered as inferior to aryans although having some aryan blood (because they are latin according to them).

Did you miss my whole explanation of why they started being anti-communist after ww2? And McCarthy goes against ur point. he was seen as a crazy right winger, even though it was shown that he was right. So much so the CIA even tried setting McCarthy up. IDK what you learned in school, but we learned McCarthy was an example of an idiot.

He is and was seen as a crazy right-winger because he went way too far by arresting people on pure allegations i.e.. But still in the beginning he was supported by the population because the population feared communism.
Really to come tell there was pro-communist propaganda in the media back then L.M.A.O.

You keep saying metapolitcal but you dont really explain what you mean. If you mean all the people funding and controlling the universities wanted to push their policies and kick right wingers out, then sure, but that's my point. Wealthy elites decide the rules of institutions and society, just like now how they were fine with BLM rioters, but anti-israel protesters arent going to be tolerated on colleges.

How to explain what metapolitics is in a simple way ? It's basically imposing your discourse and winning in the mind of people by convincing them of your political ideology. It's the same as cultural war in a way.
L.M.A.O. Literally the university to which I go was occupied by pro-Palestine / anti-Israel supporters, so did lots of universities in my country and more widely in Western Europe. There are also news about it happening in the US. They aren't tolerated but they still are in the end because they've been doing this for months.

The youth is leftist because the youth is non-white. If anything zoomer white men are more right wing than boomers. What future does the left sell? it screams about the racist and bigoted past then offers living in a pod and eating bugs while cooming to porn. Who is convinced by that future? And once again im not anti AI im just saying people are just being fantastical about it, just like how people in the early 20th century thought in the year 2000 we would have flying cars and space colonies.

The white youth is way more leftist than the older white people. Idk where you take this idea from but no, white zoomers certainly are not more right-wing than boomers. I commented higher up on the future the left proposes, a future with no more taboo, no more norm that prevents people from being totally free to choose who they are, etc.
You see, they scream hysterically about the racist and the bigotted past (and supposedly present as well) but now the right passed from being racist towards non-whites to being anti-racist. And the left passed from being anti-racist to being racist against whites. Once again, they won the cultural war, pushed their agenda and forced the right to become anti-racist. Maybe they are hysterical and insane, but it works. And what matters most is not the truth when waging a cultural war, but the results (if you win or don't win).
You are being a bit caricatural about the left which prevents from having a good analysis about them.
Okay you are not anti-AI but you have a timorous view of its future and that will never permit the right to make the youth dream about a technologically advanced brighter future.

Or actually it says that current societies policies and direction is messed up so young people have no motivation to uphold a destructive and sick society that disparages them. I see no issue there since it's true. Maybe if enough young people quit working there will actually be some change.

The youth is just very left-wing and adheres to left-wing values of working less, less excellency, more equity, etc. My generation is profoundly sick as well because we grew up in a destructive society and it impregnated us. Just look at what generation is the first generation to fall in a widespread manner for this whole gender theory with the infinite genders ? Oh yeah, right, it's Gen Z. Most of Gen Z thinks there should be more than just man and woman on forms. Once again, the right is losing cultural battle and if it continues, it will be accepted by a majority of americans that there is not just men and women. It furthers their agenda to create a new asexuated human that is detached from any cultural norm or biological reality.
You really want the youth to stop working in big quantities ? You know that this will just lead to more mass migration. Why do you think Giorgia Meloni continues making more legal immigrants come in Italy ? She's not a traitor to the nationalist cause, it's just that the Italians do not make children and if she wants to maintain her power, she has to continue making the economy grow. The diagnosis is not good, even nationalist and xenophobic countries make migrants come in because people don't have enough children, which is partly because we live in a society where destruction and death is promoted everywhere.

Corma said:
Population replacement rate is at around 2.08 in Western countries, it's what you need to maintain the same population (no increase nor decrease) in the scenario of no immigration nor emigration, that's why I took this number.

There zero basis in reality to think you need the same amount of young people as older people to be able to afford a society, especially now with how much more industry has made people productive

My point is that the far-left is urging white people not to have children under the guise of ecology, because the far-left wants the economy to decline for ecological reasons and they know damn well if people have less children the economy will decrease.

No, because a brown person in the wets consumed just as much of the economy, if not more, so that makes no sense. They wouldnt support mass immigration if that was the case. The ecology/economy thing isnt a legit belief, it's just an excuse to regulate and control the economy, the same reason they are against nuclear when that would solve the problem.

Wtf are you talking about, Japan feminist ? LMAO. They are one of the most traditional societies in all of the first-world countries.
Oh so now you're taking one example not necessarily linked to the advance in technology to try and disprove my entire claim ? What about the fall of primary sector jobs for tertiary sector jobs ? That was due to technology and we needed more workforce (so yes, women included).
Are you really saying muslim countries are as advanced technologically as the West ? I am so glad to live in the West and not a muslim country because obviously the west is way more advanced than muslim countries (technology included). And the more muslim countries get access to technology, the more women want to be emancipated from the strict patriarchy imposed by muslim men, which is perfectly normal. Why should they be imposed to wear an islamic veil ? Why can't they vote ?

You clearly dont understand japanese poltics though. Shinzo Abe made feminism literally one of his key policies for example. You know there is different waves of feminism right? Japanese are the older type of feminists, ie getting women to do all the same things as men, but not necessarily hating men at it. Misandry and feminism isnt the same thing.
The fall of primary sector jobs is because we sent them over to china or india dude. It's not like those jobs dont exist. And if anything AI can do more tertiary jobs so there would be less of those, not primary sector jobs.
And yes many muslim countries are as advanced or more advanced in technology than western countries. Do you not pay attention? Have you seen the UAE and dubai? They literally have the tallest building in the world and have lambos as police cars and stuff. And i never said they should or shouldnt wear some veil, my point was just to show technology isnt related to that.

Maybe in the US, my perspective is from Western Europe. And I doubt most people in the US would accept that too. By "we", I meant people opposed to it.

western europe is more economically left wing than USA but it wasn't always that way and just like the elites do many other things the population currently dont want, they could also remove welfare if they wanted.

Most french people are against leftist policies from 2024, but not from 1964. What percentage will be against the leftist policies of 2024 in 2084 if the right continues to lose the cultural battle ?
I don't think France necessarily needs the US although it would be a great help. They put themselves in that situation all alone, they can change the culture in their country alone as well.

I explained that already. The laws change and people catch up to them. just like how most people in USA were racist in 1950s.
And france didnt just happened entirely on it's own, it happened to all the western countries at the same time.

False and true. False because the left's policies are not just being anti-right-wing, they are about proposing a NEW FUTURE, different from societies of their time. They want a future where man has no more limits and distinctions : is mixed-race, asexuated, pacified, apolitical and is not limited nor defined by any social norms (nor biological realities). And all of their measures go towards a more mixed-race society, a society where men and women are always less differentiated, where war and imposing your wish through force (if you're the Occident) is seen as inherently bad, where there is no distinction between sexual orientations, etc. This is the future they are proposing and imposing (because the right just says yes but they are wrong / it's bad for society. OKAY but then propose something else if you want to rally people to your cause).
European societies are socially far-left for the 1960s standard, so I wholeheartedly disagree with your stance. And once again if the right continues to lose the cultural war, the European society of the future will be even more far-left than it already is, although the majority will remain conservative (meaning they just don't want the changes to happen too quickly).
You really think the stance of most british people today that answer they are against mass migration is the same as the ones in the 60s ? Yes they are in majority against mass migration but can we really call that a right-wing discourse for lots of them when looking at the arguments ?

By definition if you are against a past society you have a vision of a new society, but that is true for any political belief. But as you descried their vision is just essentially the opposite of the traditional society.
As for the british thing i explained that multiple times already. The law changes and then culture catches up to it, yes.

Speculation, speculation, speculation. You don't know the future in advance but present it as a fact.

It's called science. If i drop a ball i know it will fall towards the earth, not up, because i know the laws of nature. It's nothing to do with knowing the future.

The french were not considered as aryans, they were considered as inferior to aryans although having some aryan blood (because they are latin according to them).

Im not sure what you learned, but maybe you should actually read the nazis own rules and documents rather than what the people who defeated them say they are. Read the hitler youth handbook and you will clearly see what they think and dont think of all the different races.

He is and was seen as a crazy right-winger because he went way too far by arresting people on pure allegations i.e.. But still in the beginning he was supported by the population because the population feared communism.
Really to come tell there was pro-communist propaganda in the media back then L.M.A.O.

You once again miss what i said about why the change in communists happen, but they did actual support what they figured was true communism, for example MLK was a communist and literally worked with communist party members and the media supported him. As i stated, they were against the nationalist form of communism that stalin made after the war, but they were cultural marxists. Like do you deny that period of time is when cultural marxism was being implemented in the west and america?

How to explain what metapolitics is in a simple way ? It's basically imposing your discourse and winning in the mind of people by convincing them of your political ideology. It's the same as cultural war in a way.
L.M.A.O. Literally the university to which I go was occupied by pro-Palestine / anti-Israel supporters, so did lots of universities in my country and more widely in Western Europe. There are also news about it happening in the US. They aren't tolerated but they still are in the end because they've been doing this for months.

Well if that is what you are talking about, then like i said that isnt relevant, because liberalism/leftist has never won a single argument. They get their way through force. By military conquest or imposing laws and firing people. After they get rid of people of impose their will, then society and culture natural tends to catch up. You seem to have it backward. You think the people change a culture then the elites change the laws, it's the other way around, the elites change the laws then the people have to catch up to the laws. It's the whole point america invades countries in order to attempt to spread liberalism. You think they just go to those countries and debate the people? No they get rid of their government and give them a new constitution/law.

The white youth is way more leftist than the older white people. Idk where you take this idea from but no, white zoomers certainly are not more right-wing than boomers. I commented higher up on the future the left proposes, a future with no more taboo, no more norm that prevents people from being totally free to choose who they are, etc.
You see, they scream hysterically about the racist and the bigotted past (and supposedly present as well) but now the right passed from being racist towards non-whites to being anti-racist. And the left passed from being anti-racist to being racist against whites. Once again, they won the cultural war, pushed their agenda and forced the right to become anti-racist. Maybe they are hysterical and insane, but it works. And what matters most is not the truth when waging a cultural war, but the results (if you win or don't win).

Idk what you are basis this one, but all the data says it's just the non-whites or women that are the liberals, like how it's always been. Maybe you can find one poll of like 1000 people in new york city or san fransico that shows the young white men are liberals, but nothing on the national scale.

You are being a bit caricatural about the left which prevents from having a good analysis about them.
Okay you are not anti-AI but you have a timorous view of its future and that will never permit the right to make the youth dream about a technologically advanced brighter future.

It's not realy relevant, the nazis for example had a vison of a technological advances future. So did conservative Americans in the past, but that wont happen if leftist and continue to get their way, instead the west will turn into brazil.

The youth is just very left-wing and adheres to left-wing values of working less, less excellency, more equity, etc. My generation is profoundly sick as well because we grew up in a destructive society and it impregnated us. Just look at what generation is the first generation to fall in a widespread manner for this whole gender theory with the infinite genders ? Oh yeah, right, it's Gen Z. Most of Gen Z thinks there should be more than just man and woman on forms. Once again, the right is losing cultural battle and if it continues, it will be accepted by a majority of americans that there is not just men and women. It furthers their agenda to create a new asexuated human that is detached from any cultural norm or biological reality.

Once again, gen z is overwhelming non-white and female. Just look at white males in gen-z and it paints a different picture. They are coomers that use porn, sure, but they are also more far right.

You really want the youth to stop working in big quantities ? You know that this will just lead to more mass migration. Why do you think Giorgia Meloni continues making more legal immigrants come in Italy ? She's not a traitor to the nationalist cause, it's just that the Italians do not make children and if she wants to maintain her power, she has to continue making the economy grow. The diagnosis is not good, even nationalist and xenophobic countries make migrants come in because people don't have enough children, which is partly because we live in a society where destruction and death is promoted everywhere.

Giorgia Meloni is a traitor and people said so even before she was elected. Everyone who was knowledgeable knew she would be that way because they were literally pointing out how she was trained by Tony Blair and was meeting with him. You know who Tony Blair is right?

There zero basis in reality to think you need the same amount of young people as older people to be able to afford a society, especially now with how much more industry has made people productive

Once again the current situation in the West is the proof you aren't right but for some reason you are convinced what is happening isn't happening. I still am unable to manage to start understanding how one can think a country can work when there is such a low ratio of young people in 2024.

No, because a brown person in the wets consumed just as much of the economy, if not more, so that makes no sense. They wouldnt support mass immigration if that was the case. The ecology/economy thing isnt a legit belief, it's just an excuse to regulate and control the economy, the same reason they are against nuclear when that would solve the problem.

They put their anti-racism / anti-whiteness above ecology, that's why. But still, what I said is true, less children, less economic growth, so they support that.
Once again, I think they really believe in what they say. They are destroying society and legitimately believe in the superiority and greatness of their ideology.

You clearly dont understand japanese poltics though. Shinzo Abe made feminism literally one of his key policies for example. You know there is different waves of feminism right? Japanese are the older type of feminists, ie getting women to do all the same things as men, but not necessarily hating men at it. Misandry and feminism isnt the same thing.
The fall of primary sector jobs is because we sent them over to china or india dude. It's not like those jobs dont exist. And if anything AI can do more tertiary jobs so there would be less of those, not primary sector jobs.
And yes many muslim countries are as advanced or more advanced in technology than western countries. Do you not pay attention? Have you seen the UAE and dubai? They literally have the tallest building in the world and have lambos as police cars and stuff. And i never said they should or shouldnt wear some veil, my point was just to show technology isnt related to that.

Yes there are 3 waves of feminism I know that.
Yes we delocalized those jobs but what's relevant in the context of our conversation is about the West itself. It's partly the REASON why in the WEST we started needing for women to work.
Totally agree on AI and tertiary jobs, that's why we have to fund AI and further the hype surrounding AI, so that AI can eventually replace the jobs of migrant workers if white people continue not wanting to have enough children.

western europe is more economically left wing than USA but it wasn't always that way and just like the elites do many other things the population currently dont want, they could also remove welfare if they wanted.

They could but they won't and if they did there would be outrage.

I explained that already. The laws change and people catch up to them. just like how most people in USA were racist in 1950s.
And france didnt just happened entirely on it's own, it happened to all the western countries at the same time.

Once again you are reversing what actually happens. Laws change because mentalities change, not the other way around.
Correlation isn't causation once again, and no it didn't happen in all western countries at the same time. Of course there was some inspiration between leftists of the west but even w/o the US what happened would have happened anyways imo.

By definition if you are against a past society you have a vision of a new society, but that is true for any political belief. But as you descried their vision is just essentially the opposite of the traditional society.
As for the british thing i explained that multiple times already. The law changes and then culture catches up to it, yes.

The right is blocked in nostalgy towards the past, this is the problem.
I think you invert things once again, the ruling elite did it because the left won the political war in the universities and even right-wingers opposed to immigration became more left-wing on that same topic. That's why laws changed. For me, the English and Western Europeans brought that on themselves mainly, it wasn't imposed on them by some sort of evil elite.

It's called science. If i drop a ball i know it will fall towards the earth, not up, because i know the laws of nature. It's nothing to do with knowing the future.

You're really comparing speculation towards who will control technology between man and the AI to the law of gravity ? Wtf ?

Im not sure what you learned, but maybe you should actually read the nazis own rules and documents rather than what the people who defeated them say they are. Read the hitler youth handbook and you will clearly see what they think and dont think of all the different races.

I'm not really interested in reading hitler's books thanks, I trust the consensus among historians who did the job for me.

You once again miss what i said about why the change in communists happen, but they did actual support what they figured was true communism, for example MLK was a communist and literally worked with communist party members and the media supported him. As i stated, they were against the nationalist form of communism that stalin made after the war, but they were cultural marxists. Like do you deny that period of time is when cultural marxism was being implemented in the west and america?

There's a difference between being a cultural marxist and a communist in the style of the USSR. Yes it was at that time that cultural marxism started spreading, but certainly not mass propaganda from the system in favour of communism (like in the USSR).

Well if that is what you are talking about, then like i said that isnt relevant, because liberalism/leftist has never won a single argument. They get their way through force. By military conquest or imposing laws and firing people. After they get rid of people of impose their will, then society and culture natural tends to catch up. You seem to have it backward. You think the people change a culture then the elites change the laws, it's the other way around, the elites change the laws then the people have to catch up to the laws. It's the whole point america invades countries in order to attempt to spread liberalism. You think they just go to those countries and debate the people? No they get rid of their government and give them a new constitution/law.

Leftists win arguments as well. You know that winning an argument isn't only about facts and logics, but also the posture you have, the way you say and present things, how you answer, the way you can touch emotionally people listening to the debate, etc, etc ?
Once again this shows our disagreements, they win the cultural war therefore they can impose an always more totalitarian society without people resisting, not the other way around.
Oh yeah you speaking about America doing that, just look how well it worked in Afghanistan lmao. And it's not because it can work that way when a country invades another that it works that way within the West. Within the West, if you want to impose your laws, you have to win the cultural debate (we are in a democracy).

Idk what you are basis this one, but all the data says it's just the non-whites or women that are the liberals, like how it's always been. Maybe you can find one poll of like 1000 people in new york city or san fransico that shows the young white men are liberals, but nothing on the national scale.

Gen Z conservatives are, like every conservatives before, just liberals from 20 years ago. You really think the boomer that grew up in the 60s is less right-wing than the zoomer that grew up in the 2010s-2020s?

It's not realy relevant, the nazis for example had a vison of a technological advances future. So did conservative Americans in the past, but that wont happen if leftist and continue to get their way, instead the west will turn into brazil.

Nazis were not conservatives, neither were fascists, so it's pretty coherent. Idk about the history of the US.

Once again, gen z is overwhelming non-white and female. Just look at white males in gen-z and it paints a different picture. They are coomers that use porn, sure, but they are also more far right.

Yeah maybe can you send me some sources in DMs ?

Giorgia Meloni is a traitor and people said so even before she was elected. Everyone who was knowledgeable knew she would be that way because they were literally pointing out how she was trained by Tony Blair and was meeting with him. You know who Tony Blair is right?

Idk who Tony Blair is and idrc what people said before she was elected. She is holding tight on the values and I think she is just doing her best but tell me more maybe you can change my mind.

Wish me luck on my journey as I go on this great voyage to read whatever wall of text is above me.

T_700_Z said:

Wish me luck on my journey as I go on this great voyage to read whatever wall of text is above me.

u dont really need to read me and that dude's debate. we are kinda doing our own thing.

Corma said:

Once again the current situation in the West is the proof you aren't right but for some reason you are convinced what is happening isn't happening. I still am unable to manage to start understanding how one can think a country can work when there is such a low ratio of young people in 2024.

It's actually the opposite. The west has been importing young people en mass, so by that logic the west should be fine, while the east asian countries that havent been doing that should be worse off, when the actual case is the opposite. The west is the one experiencing inflation and high cost of living, while the east asian countries have much lower costs of living and true inflation. And i already explained how it works. One farmer can produce enough food now to feed 100+ people. same deal with other sectors in the economy. 1 waiter in a restaurant can serve like 100 people in a day, so by the time they retire they have already served and produced enough for many decades.

They put their anti-racism / anti-whiteness above ecology, that's why. But still, what I said is true, less children, less economic growth, so they support that.
Once again, I think they really believe in what they say. They are destroying society and legitimately believe in the superiority and greatness of their ideology.

Except the reality is one of the few things they care about is "line go up" so they constantly want to grow the economy. they are obsessed with growth rates. That said yes they are also destroying the country, but these things aren't mutually exclusive. India has a massive GDP, it's still a worse country to live in than the west.

Yes there are 3 waves of feminism I know that.
Yes we delocalized those jobs but what's relevant in the context of our conversation is about the West itself. It's partly the REASON why in the WEST we started needing for women to work.

We never needed women to work. Women entered the workforce back when people were still able to raise a family on a single income. In fact doubling the labor supply is one reason why we need 2 incomes now as the value of labor is lower. Women were encouraged to work for two reason: 1. help dismantle the nuclear family and "patriarchy" as well as get children into public school and daycares. 2. drive down the value of labor.

They could but they won't and if they did there would be outrage.

They wont cause welfare serves their goal of expanding government power and control and destroying society, but they dont care about outrage; they create plenty of it all ready.

Once again you are reversing what actually happens. Laws change because mentalities change, not the other way around.
Correlation isn't causation once again, and no it didn't happen in all western countries at the same time. Of course there was some inspiration between leftists of the west but even w/o the US what happened would have happened anyways imo.

Except the reality is what i said not what you said. you can literally look at history. the laws change first then they cause the norms to change. And yes, it happened in every country after ww2 ie the same time (though like i said the beginnings were after ww1) and if there was no ww2 none of this would have happened.

The right is blocked in nostalgy towards the past, this is the problem.
I think you invert things once again, the ruling elite did it because the left won the political war in the universities and even right-wingers opposed to immigration became more left-wing on that same topic. That's why laws changed. For me, the English and Western Europeans brought that on themselves mainly, it wasn't imposed on them by some sort of evil elite.

No I'm following actual history, while you seem to ignore it. the ruling elite were the ones responsible for changing the colleges. once again they fund and set the direction and regulation of the colleges. Just like how back when the catholic church owned the college the colleges were pushing Christian ideology.

You're really comparing speculation towards who will control technology between man and the AI to the law of gravity ? Wtf ?

Evolution and natural selection is as solid of a law as gravity.

I'm not really interested in reading hitler's books thanks, I trust the consensus among historians who did the job for me.

Which consensus? many of the biggest historians are also "revisionists" as they are called. The fact that you wont look into things for yourself explains why you think the things you do.

There's a difference between being a cultural marxist and a communist in the style of the USSR. Yes it was at that time that cultural marxism started spreading, but certainly not mass propaganda from the system in favour of communism (like in the USSR).

Yes, once against they turned on the soviets after the war because they started becoming culturally nationalist. And in fact, we worked with the soviets whenever they went to implement what the west thought of as "true leftism" like decolonization programs.

Leftists win arguments as well. You know that winning an argument isn't only about facts and logics, but also the posture you have, the way you say and present things, how you answer, the way you can touch emotionally people listening to the debate, etc, etc ?

No they dont. they shut down arguments with force. either censorship or mobs picketing speeches and stuff.

Once again this shows our disagreements, they win the cultural war therefore they can impose an always more totalitarian society without people resisting, not the other way around.

Yes, and it seems like you believe this wrong idea because you dont look into things yourself, you just go by the way the mainstream establishment say history happened.

Oh yeah you speaking about America doing that, just look how well it worked in Afghanistan lmao. And it's not because it can work that way when a country invades another that it works that way within the West. Within the West, if you want to impose your laws, you have to win the cultural debate (we are in a democracy).

Yes i dont support it, im just saying the west does it. And no, you dont win a cultural debate to impose ur laws in the west. once again the left never won a debate. and lol at saying we are a democracy. Switzerland is like the only country you might be able to say that about. The west are oligarchies. The laws are created by special interest groups, NGOs and lobbyist. Since when do politicians pass laws based on what the majority want? you seem to be living in a fantasy land. tha'ts the whole point of the populist movement. We are trying to get politicians that actually support laws the majority do. Very few politicians are populist though.

Gen Z conservatives are, like every conservatives before, just liberals from 20 years ago. You really think the boomer that grew up in the 60s is less right-wing than the zoomer that grew up in the 2010s-2020s?

Yes, the right wing boomers are the most liberal conservatives. They are the only ones that think things like races dont exist or other delusional things. Hence the whole meme of "the day of the pillow". we wont ever get a true right wing untill the last boomer passes away.

Nazis were not conservatives, neither were fascists, so it's pretty coherent. Idk about the history of the US.

uh what? fascism and nazism is literally designed to be conservative culturally. That's their whole point. They might not be conservative when it comes to economics but that is different.

Idk who Tony Blair is and idrc what people said before she was elected. She is holding tight on the values and I think she is just doing her best but tell me more maybe you can change my mind.

The fact that you are arguing politics and you dont even know who tony blair is makes me realize this entire conversation was pointless. You dont even know someone who was the most influential European liberal and prime minister. based off that and you previous comment about saying you dont bother to look into political history yourself makes me understand why you have such an ignorant view on how things work now. You seem to just believe what the liberal mainstream story is on politics and society. There really is no point in continuing this conversation then, you need to study more politics and history.

It's actually the opposite. The west has been importing young people en mass, so by that logic the west should be fine, while the east asian countries that havent been doing that should be worse off, when the actual case is the opposite. The west is the one experiencing inflation and high cost of living, while the east asian countries have much lower costs of living and true inflation. And i already explained how it works. One farmer can produce enough food now to feed 100+ people. same deal with other sectors in the economy. 1 waiter in a restaurant can serve like 100 people in a day, so by the time they retire they have already served and produced enough for many decades.

Nope, because the population is continuing to age in the West although it imported lots of young workers. Stick to the facts. Look at the median age in Italy or Switzerland i.e. although they imported lots of young workers.
I never said the opposite for agriculture, neither for waiters, but that doesn't disprove my point. Also, wdym once a farmer retires he has already produced enough for many decades ??? That's absolutely not how agriculture works and it's certainly not one isolated farmer that can do that.
Once again, you cannot deny the FACT that xenophobic Asian countries (Singapore, Japan, South Kora, Taiwan) are importing foreigners BECAUSE their native population doesn't have enough children and therefore the economy can't continue to grow as if they had enough children. Why do you think Japan is doing everything for its population to have more kids ? Same for Russia, same for Poland, etc. The PiS in Poland imported foreign workers not because they like Pakistanis, but because the Polish don't have enough children and therefore the economy cannot work properly. Hell EVEN in Moldova there are ads in Asian countries to attract foreign workers because the young population is emigrating en masse and they don't have enough children.

Except the reality is one of the few things they care about is "line go up" so they constantly want to grow the economy. they are obsessed with growth rates. That said yes they are also destroying the country, but these things aren't mutually exclusive. India has a massive GDP, it's still a worse country to live in than the west.

What matters is GDP per capita, not GDP in itself. Of course India has a massive GDP but their GDP per capita is very low, which is the reason why it's clearly not as good to live there. Why do you think the countries with the reputation of being the richest and most prosperous are also the one with the biggest GDP PER CAPITA ?

We never needed women to work. Women entered the workforce back when people were still able to raise a family on a single income. In fact doubling the labor supply is one reason why we need 2 incomes now as the value of labor is lower. Women were encouraged to work for two reason: 1. help dismantle the nuclear family and "patriarchy" as well as get children into public school and daycares. 2. drive down the value of labor.

Oh my god how can I even argue with someone that really believes in what he is saying when he says things like that ? Yup, jobs were created out of thin air just for the 2 points you mentioned, absolutely, magical jobs were created out of nowhere for half of the population just to help push an agenda, that's super rational. It's absolutely not linked to the transformation of our economies , increase in consuming, urbanisation and the fact the population is getting always older (less young people for more old people in proportion).

They wont cause welfare serves their goal of expanding government power and control and destroying society, but they dont care about outrage; they create plenty of it all ready.

I don't think it would be the same kind of outrage as there is today lol.

Except the reality is what i said not what you said. you can literally look at history. the laws change first then they cause the norms to change. And yes, it happened in every country after ww2 ie the same time (though like i said the beginnings were after ww1) and if there was no ww2 none of this would have happened.

Once again we will never agree on this, there is a reason why laws change, it's because the mentality of a certain portion of the population changed (whether a big minority or the majority). It's not the opposite. And no, it didn't happen in every country after ww2 at the same time. The reality is what I said and not what you said, you can literally look at history (see I can also say it).

No I'm following actual history, while you seem to ignore it. the ruling elite were the ones responsible for changing the colleges. once again they fund and set the direction and regulation of the colleges. Just like how back when the catholic church owned the college the colleges were pushing Christian ideology.

Colleges were subverted by leftist ideology because it was a space of free speech and right-wingers deserted certain faculties. The right also ceased to propose a future but marginalized itself in conservatism. That's why the mentalities changed in universities. Leftists didn't own universities (and still don't, except if in the US things are different than in Western Europe).

Evolution and natural selection is as solid of a law as gravity.

What you said literally has NOTHING to do with neither evolution nor natural selection. You just speculated as to who will control technology in the future (man or computers) and then you presented it as a fact and now you're even saying that what you said was evolution / natural selection ? Wtf dude ?????????????? You know what is natural selection ? And evolution ? You literally said computers will control genetic engineering in the future and then said oh yeah what I said is a fact because it's evolution and natural selection. You cannot know for a fact who will control genetic engineering and then just say "oh yeah it's evolution / natural selection so you can't contradict me because those are facts".

There's no link between evolution / natural selection as it happened since life exists and who will control genetic engineering.

Which consensus? many of the biggest historians are also "revisionists" as they are called. The fact that you wont look into things for yourself explains why you think the things you do.

I'm not a historian nor interested in doing extensive research by reading hitler's books. What matters is what the vast majority of historians think and if they agree overwhelmingly on some things. I stick to what is objectively regarded and presented as facts by historians.

Yes, once against they turned on the soviets after the war because they started becoming culturally nationalist. And in fact, we worked with the soviets whenever they went to implement what the west thought of as "true leftism" like decolonization programs.

Okay but just decolonization alone doesn't make it full blown communism as in the USSR. And neither is cultural marxism the same thing as communism in the USSR.

No they dont. they shut down arguments with force. either censorship or mobs picketing speeches and stuff.

You are caricatural, lots of them shut down arguments with force but lots also debate. Even yesterday evening I looked at a debate between leftists, centrists and right-wingers. Wth are you talking about ? And what I said about what constitutes winning a debate still is relevant.

Yes, and it seems like you believe this wrong idea because you dont look into things yourself, you just go by the way the mainstream establishment say history happened.

Ehhh ? You know I got these ideas from reading books of marginalized right-wingers, considered as far-right or even neo-nazis (although they evidently aren't, they're democratic, zionist (they like jews), occidentalist, etc) ?

Yes i dont support it, im just saying the west does it. And no, you dont win a cultural debate to impose ur laws in the west. once again the left never won a debate. and lol at saying we are a democracy. Switzerland is like the only country you might be able to say that about. The west are oligarchies. The laws are created by special interest groups, NGOs and lobbyist. Since when do politicians pass laws based on what the majority want? you seem to be living in a fantasy land. tha'ts the whole point of the populist movement. We are trying to get politicians that actually support laws the majority do. Very few politicians are populist though.

L.M.A.O. Of course the left won loads of debate, once again what counts isn't just facts, it's also emotions, posture, rhetoric, etc. Keep ignoring those elements as if in the eyes of people that didn't count. And also they are the ones that successfully put their agenda in the center of the debate and society, independently from whether it's rational or not, because they are THE ONLY ONE proposing a future. And a society builds itself based on propositions for the future and not nostalgy towards the past.
I never said the politicians necessarily passed laws based on what the majority wants, but they do when they have a substantial support regardless. And if they pass laws that the majority really don't accept and for which it's fundamental for these laws not to pass, they are sanctioned later on by not being reelected. So it's still the people's choice. The same way most french people are opposed to non-European immigration but they still don't elect Marine Le Pen because this topic is not fundamental for a part of them.
Laws aren't created by NGOs and lobbyist, but they can put pressure on the government to pass some laws.
The problem with populism is that the majority isn't necessarily right. Let me tell you if politicians systematically only passed laws that the majority of french people support when it comes to economy, France would be in a worse state than it is now already lmao.

Yes, the right wing boomers are the most liberal conservatives. They are the only ones that think things like races dont exist or other delusional things. Hence the whole meme of "the day of the pillow". we wont ever get a true right wing untill the last boomer passes away.

EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ? You really think right-wing Gen Zers think races aren't social constructs ? L.M.A.O. I am from that generation and I can tell you they are WAY more delusional than older right-wingers.
It's just a meme, based on what reality ? None ? Exactly. Younger right-wingers are way more likely to think blacks are treated unfairly by society than older right-wingers. And you can't just explain that by the fact there are more white people among older right-wingers. And the fact more and more non-whites are becoming Republicans is evidently influencing the party to become more and more anti-racist, hence influencing younger white right-wingers to also become more and more anti-racist.

uh what? fascism and nazism is literally designed to be conservative culturally. That's their whole point. They might not be conservative when it comes to economics but that is different.

Literally they are the opposite of conservatism. They proposed a new ideal man and are fully into building new impressive buildings, using technology to their advantage, etc. They had their heads turned towards a new brighter future (according to them) : colonization for fascists, more Lebensraum and power for germanic people, etc, etc. They were the opposite of conservatives, literally.

The fact that you are arguing politics and you dont even know who tony blair is makes me realize this entire conversation was pointless. You dont even know someone who was the most influential European liberal and prime minister. based off that and you previous comment about saying you dont bother to look into political history yourself makes me understand why you have such an ignorant view on how things work now. You seem to just believe what the liberal mainstream story is on politics and society. There really is no point in continuing this conversation then, you need to study more politics and history.

Oh so just because I don't know who a politician is now I can't argue about politics ? You realize I was just 3 years old at the time he finished having power ? What interests me is politics NOW, not in the past when I wasn't even born.
Wow, yeah I'm just ignorant and you're so obviously right, GG man you won this debate.
You're religiously denying everything the mainstream is saying whereas I have a more nuanced POV then I'm the one that has a problem just wow. What is there to say ? 😂😂😂

Alright you two can get a room now, it’s getting a bit much.

AryanSuperSoldier said:

Alright you two can get a room now, it’s getting a bit much.

Oh, you want us to have some bonding time in a room all alone ? 🤭

AryanSuperSoldier said:

Alright you two can get a room now, it’s getting a bit much.

Just ignore us, i tend to do this thing. people that have been on the site for a while have seen it a lot, lol.

Corma said:

Nope, because the population is continuing to age in the West although it imported lots of young workers. Stick to the facts. Look at the median age in Italy or Switzerland i.e. although they imported lots of young workers.

Look at the medium age of asian countries. Those and Switzerland go against ur point because they are better economies than the other western countries that have been mass importing young people so have a lower median age.

I never said the opposite for agriculture, neither for waiters, but that doesn't disprove my point. Also, wdym once a farmer retires he has already produced enough for many decades ??? That's absolutely not how agriculture works and it's certainly not one isolated farmer that can do that.

Like i said, one farmer produces enough food that if stored up could feed him for many lifetimes.

Once again, you cannot deny the FACT that xenophobic Asian countries (Singapore, Japan, South Kora, Taiwan) are importing foreigners BECAUSE their native population doesn't have enough children and therefore the economy can't continue to grow as if they had enough children. Why do you think Japan is doing everything for its population to have more kids ? Same for Russia, same for Poland, etc. The PiS in Poland imported foreign workers not because they like Pakistanis, but because the Polish don't have enough children and therefore the economy cannot work properly. Hell EVEN in Moldova there are ads in Asian countries to attract foreign workers because the young population is emigrating en masse and they don't have enough children.

You next point disproves this one. First of all, asian countries arent mass importing people. They are 99% still their ethnicity, but regardless the idea is because they want to increase GDP, NOT GDP per capita which is what matters. In fact importing people will lower GDP per capita but most elites dont care about that, just GDP.

What matters is GDP per capita, not GDP in itself. Of course India has a massive GDP but their GDP per capita is very low, which is the reason why it's clearly not as good to live there. Why do you think the countries with the reputation of being the richest and most prosperous are also the one with the biggest GDP PER CAPITA ?

Yes that is my exact point, id how that related to what you said though.

Oh my god how can I even argue with someone that really believes in what he is saying when he says things like that ? Yup, jobs were created out of thin air just for the 2 points you mentioned, absolutely, magical jobs were created out of nowhere for half of the population just to help push an agenda, that's super rational. It's absolutely not linked to the transformation of our economies , increase in consuming, urbanisation and the fact the population is getting always older (less young people for more old people in proportion).

Yes actually. many jobs are in fact completely pointless and worthless. Elon musk most notably pointed that out when he bought twitter, but so have other people like that CEO of telegram tucker Carlson interviewed. They are created just to give feminists and liberals jobs.

I don't think it would be the same kind of outrage as there is today lol.

Once again we will never agree on this, there is a reason why laws change, it's because the mentality of a certain portion of the population changed (whether a big minority or the majority). It's not the opposite. And no, it didn't happen in every country after ww2 at the same time. The reality is what I said and not what you said, you can literally look at history (see I can also say it).

Colleges were subverted by leftist ideology because it was a space of free speech and right-wingers deserted certain faculties. The right also ceased to propose a future but marginalized itself in conservatism. That's why the mentalities changed in universities. Leftists didn't own universities (and still don't, except if in the US things are different than in Western Europe).

I mean you can say that, but if you actually look at history which you dont, youd know i was correct. You can continue to repeat that over and over just like i repeat my point stating the opposite, but the facts are only on my side.

What you said literally has NOTHING to do with neither evolution nor natural selection. You just speculated as to who will control technology in the future (man or computers) and then you presented it as a fact and now you're even saying that what you said was evolution / natural selection ? Wtf dude ?????????????? You know what is natural selection ? And evolution ? You literally said computers will control genetic engineering in the future and then said oh yeah what I said is a fact because it's evolution and natural selection. You cannot know for a fact who will control genetic engineering and then just say "oh yeah it's evolution / natural selection so you can't contradict me because those are facts".

There's no link between evolution / natural selection as it happened since life exists and who will control genetic engineering.

Actually i said either humans or computers would, which unless u believe some aliens are going to conquer humanity, then it's a certainty. And yes it's pretty obvious computers also will since they are literally what are used right now for genetic studies. The evolution and natural selection part was stating how it doesn't matter if humans or computers do it, it will end up still similar.

I'm not a historian nor interested in doing extensive research by reading hitler's books. What matters is what the vast majority of historians think and if they agree overwhelmingly on some things. I stick to what is objectively regarded and presented as facts by historians.

Except that isn't even true. You never even bothered to check the surveys on what historians believe. You are just doing a basic appeal to authority. Because the historians in school taught you that, that must be what historians believe. There are plenty of historians that dont follow that, they just wont be the ones teaching you in school cause they get fired. It's selection bias.

Okay but just decolonization alone doesn't make it full blown communism as in the USSR. And neither is cultural marxism the same thing as communism in the USSR.

I never said it did. in fact my point was the opposite. They would only work with the USSR on "true leftist" things. The USSR werent considered true leftists by the elites that came to the west. They betrayed the revolution, as Cultural Marxism is true communism to them. It's not enough to break down the different economic classes, you must also break down race and gender and heteronormativity and beauty, and so on, and Stalin betrayed that.

You are caricatural, lots of them shut down arguments with force but lots also debate. Even yesterday evening I looked at a debate between leftists, centrists and right-wingers. Wth are you talking about ? And what I said about what constitutes winning a debate still is relevant.

A few leftist do debate yes, but every time they do they always lose to anyone besides they own audience so that really doesnt show anything.

L.M.A.O. Of course the left won loads of debate, once again what counts isn't just facts, it's also emotions, posture, rhetoric, etc. Keep ignoring those elements as if in the eyes of people that didn't count. And also they are the ones that successfully put their agenda in the center of the debate and society, independently from whether it's rational or not, because they are THE ONLY ONE proposing a future. And a society builds itself based on propositions for the future and not nostalgy towards the past.

Im not denying emotion and charisma matters in debates, like i said, im literally just say no leftists every won debates, im not saying they just lost on facts. And yes, the right has numerous proposals for the future. Everything from ancaps to fascists and in between.

I never said the politicians necessarily passed laws based on what the majority wants, but they do when they have a substantial support regardless. And if they pass laws that the majority really don't accept and for which it's fundamental for these laws not to pass, they are sanctioned later on by not being reelected. So it's still the people's choice. The same way most french people are opposed to non-European immigration but they still don't elect Marine Le Pen because this topic is not fundamental for a part of them.

The majority dont even look at the voting records of their politicians, only the very politically involved do. Look just watching this video on the studies that came about about this. What you are saying is the opposite of reality. https://www.bitchute.com/video/jeroq1tZ2v6W/

Laws aren't created by NGOs and lobbyist, but they can put pressure on the government to pass some laws.
The problem with populism is that the majority isn't necessarily right. Let me tell you if politicians systematically only passed laws that the majority of french people support when it comes to economy, France would be in a worse state than it is now already lmao.

Lol, no that's exactly what happenes. A lot of the politicians don't even read the laws they vote on, practically none of them write the laws. They get the laws from NGOs and special interest groups, a lot of the time litteraly copy and pasting them, but if they dont they only change 1 or two words to make it seem like they did some work, then just just vote on the summary the NGO or lobby group said the law was about. You have no idea how government works.
but yes, like i said the European population is generally economically left, but socially conservative AKA national socialism. If the majority got their way that would be the economies of Europe, just like it was before the war.

EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ? You really think right-wing Gen Zers think races aren't social constructs ? L.M.A.O. I am from that generation and I can tell you they are WAY more delusional than older right-wingers.
It's just a meme, based on what reality ? None ? Exactly. Younger right-wingers are way more likely to think blacks are treated unfairly by society than older right-wingers. And you can't just explain that by the fact there are more white people among older right-wingers. And the fact more and more non-whites are becoming Republicans is evidently influencing the party to become more and more anti-racist, hence influencing younger white right-wingers to also become more and more anti-racist.

I have no clue what you are basing this on but it's the opposite of reality. right wing zoomers dont believe any of that nonsense. They are doing things like watching that cat boy liker Nick Fuentes. The young right wingers are rebelling against the establishment republicans and go for populists. None of them vote for those people like Mitch McConnell. Boomers are the reasons those people are elected.

Literally they are the opposite of conservatism. They proposed a new ideal man and are fully into building new impressive buildings, using technology to their advantage, etc. They had their heads turned towards a new brighter future (according to them) : colonization for fascists, more Lebensraum and power for germanic people, etc, etc. They were the opposite of conservatives, literally.

Once again, you dont know what you are talking about because you refuse to look into it for yourself. Everything the Nazis based their ideas on were past philosophies. Yes they do thinks like wanting impressive buildings, because that is literally a conservative thing to complain about modern ugly building styles and so on. Colonization is nothing new either. It's literally "the white mans burden" rehashed.

Oh so just because I don't know who a politician is now I can't argue about politics ? You realize I was just 3 years old at the time he finished having power ? What interests me is politics NOW, not in the past when I wasn't even born.

Just because something happened even before you were born is irrelevan.t i was born after ww2 and America's founding, i still learned that stuff cause it's relevant. And Tony Blair didnt go away. he literally spends his time traveling the world to train politicians and governments, of which the current Italian leader is one of them. He is one of the major players in European and world politics.

Wow, yeah I'm just ignorant and you're so obviously right, GG man you won this debate.
You're religiously denying everything the mainstream is saying whereas I have a more nuanced POV then I'm the one that has a problem just wow. What is there to say ? 😂😂😂

Did you ever stop and think maybe the same mainstream media that is leftist, and hates white people, would also lie to you about other things? Or do you think they only lie and mislead people about whites?

It's pretty obvious why you think the things you do. it's literally just what the mainstream taught you and you took it as fact instead of looking into it and figuring out it's lies and the world doesnt actually work that way. It's just a lie to get people to continue supporting establishments. They teach you that stuff so you think you can just vote red or blue and it makes a difference because after all "thats how democracy works" "lets go out and do another protest again, surely they will listen to us this time because protest is how you cause change"

Look at the medium age of asian countries. Those and Switzerland go against ur point because they are better economies than the other western countries that have been mass importing young people so have a lower median age.

My point is that the median age of the population STILL is increasing although western countries are importing young people en masse, so the only solution is natality. Also, it is a multifactorial issue. In South Korea and Japan, there is a very strict culture centered around working and being productive, and studying well. There's a reason why they are one of the bests in terms of education. So it is pretty logical if we take into account not just the median age. But yes, they still have problems, hence the importation of foreigners too.

Like i said, one farmer produces enough food that if stored up could feed him for many lifetimes.

Oh so now you're speaking of one person ? But we are speaking in terms of populations. And still, most of the jobs are in the tertiary sector, which is the most relevant in our debate as a consequence.

You next point disproves this one. First of all, asian countries arent mass importing people. They are 99% still their ethnicity, but regardless the idea is because they want to increase GDP, NOT GDP per capita which is what matters. In fact importing people will lower GDP per capita but most elites dont care about that, just GDP.

Asian countries are STARTING to import en masse people, notably Japan. Japan started doing that last year and is planning on make politics that make it easier for foreigners to come and install themselves.
Okay let's go back to what you said. Your point was that India was not a good country to live in in comparison to the West although it has a big GDP, THAT'S WHY I made the point about GDP per capita, because only that matters when it comes to how comfortably one can live in a country. So yes, GDP per capita IS hat matters truly.

Yes actually. many jobs are in fact completely pointless and worthless. Elon musk most notably pointed that out when he bought twitter, but so have other people like that CEO of telegram tucker Carlson interviewed. They are created just to give feminists and liberals jobs.

The jobs you are speaking about are a very tiny minority of all of the existing jobs and only in specific big companies. The vast vast majority of new jobs are due to increasing in consuming, urbanisation, new technologies and the need for more people to work is also due to the fact the population is ageing every single year.

I mean you can say that, but if you actually look at history which you dont, youd know i was correct. You can continue to repeat that over and over just like i repeat my point stating the opposite, but the facts are only on my side.

I mean you can say that, but if you actually look at history which you dont, youd know i was correct. You can continue to repeat that over and over just like i repeat my point stating the opposite, but the facts are only on my side.

Actually i said either humans or computers would, which unless u believe some aliens are going to conquer humanity, then it's a certainty. And yes it's pretty obvious computers also will since they are literally what are used right now for genetic studies. The evolution and natural selection part was stating how it doesn't matter if humans or computers do it, it will end up still similar.

So you don't even know for sure what you're talking about and you present that as a fact the same way gravity is a fact ?
Also, idk if it's just me but that doesn't make sense ? You are making one point then changing it to another point then to another one which is very confusing and frankly I am lost in what your argument is ? Please keep it consistent.

Except that isn't even true. You never even bothered to check the surveys on what historians believe. You are just doing a basic appeal to authority. Because the historians in school taught you that, that must be what historians believe. There are plenty of historians that dont follow that, they just wont be the ones teaching you in school cause they get fired. It's selection bias.

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when you quote someone that has authority but is not expert in said domain, so yes I appeal to authority which is the most normal thing to do. Also, not 100% of climatologists agree there is a man-made climate change but the vast vast majority does, so it's pretty logical to say yes, there is climate change. It works the same for historians, although there isn't a 100% consensus, the fact the vast majority believes in a thing IS the reason why we are taught what we are taught in school.

I never said it did. in fact my point was the opposite. They would only work with the USSR on "true leftist" things. The USSR werent considered true leftists by the elites that came to the west. They betrayed the revolution, as Cultural Marxism is true communism to them. It's not enough to break down the different economic classes, you must also break down race and gender and heteronormativity and beauty, and so on, and Stalin betrayed that.

Okay now I understand your point, but I don't think that in their heads they were pushing for communism, it's all the opposite. People, including elites, feared communism. Elites in the west were anti-communist and if you showed them what our world would look like today, they would mostly think it's ugly and extreme.

A few leftist do debate yes, but every time they do they always lose to anyone besides they own audience so that really doesnt show anything.

The second part of your sentence also applies to right-wingers if it's what you want to believe in. But if you're not politicized and there is a debate between a right-winger and a leftist, then leftists do sometimes win, yes.

Im not denying emotion and charisma matters in debates, like i said, im literally just say no leftists every won debates, im not saying they just lost on facts. And yes, the right has numerous proposals for the future. Everything from ancaps to fascists and in between.

Oh god you're so biased you can't even objectively look at whether someone lost a debate or not. The debate I saw the other day was featuring 3 right-wingers and 3 leftists (and 1 centrist) and the ones that won the debate overall was one of the most radical leftist and one of the more moderate right-winger, objectively. They were the most convincing on what they were saying and how, also when they were cutting people to contradict them. Although I agree with very few things with the leftist, still he won the debate overall. That makes one counterexample. With the number of debates on TV, radios and YouTube, there are many many leftists that won debates, and it's not the first time I see a leftist winning a debate over a right-winger. I have 2 other examples that come spontaneously in my head.

The majority dont even look at the voting records of their politicians, only the very politically involved do. Look just watching this video on the studies that came about about this. What you are saying is the opposite of reality. https://www.bitchute.com/video/jeroq1tZ2v6W/

I didn't watch the entire videos but I did look at all of the graphics and tell me if I am wrong, what is shows is that basically when richer people favour something, it's more likely to pass than when poorer people favour something, i.e. the influence of the opinion of richer people is more important than those of the poorer people ?
If I understood well those graphs, that just proves my point further that we need to propose an alternative future to the left to win over the cultural debate in universities (notably) again, to influence rich people to become more right-wing again. I don't see the problem with the fact the opinion of richer people have more influence since richer people tend to have a higher IQ (in great part for genetical reasons, because people predisposed genetically to have higher IQs tend to be more educated and have a better income, independently of whether they come from a poor or a rich family).

Lol, no that's exactly what happenes. A lot of the politicians don't even read the laws they vote on, practically none of them write the laws. They get the laws from NGOs and special interest groups, a lot of the time litteraly copy and pasting them, but if they dont they only change 1 or two words to make it seem like they did some work, then just just vote on the summary the NGO or lobby group said the law was about. You have no idea how government works.
but yes, like i said the European population is generally economically left, but socially conservative AKA national socialism. If the majority got their way that would be the economies of Europe, just like it was before the war.

Source of your affirmation ? Because in Switzerland it's certainly not like that.
Imo being on the left is the worst you can do in terms of economy and being a conservative when it comes to social issues is the worst you can do so I'm pretty glad if the elites don't fully respect the wish of the majority. The best is being liberal in terms of economy and right-wing (but not conservative, I am anti-conservatism because it's the most useless thing in human history) socially.
Before the war we were not in a globalized world. Plus the economies were certainly not socialist nor communist and for the best. They were very capitalist and liberal. We CANNOT (it's IMPOSSIBLE) to go back to the economies we have before the war, literally. The world (Europe included) is a whole different place.

I have no clue what you are basing this on but it's the opposite of reality. right wing zoomers dont believe any of that nonsense. They are doing things like watching that cat boy liker Nick Fuentes. The young right wingers are rebelling against the establishment republicans and go for populists. None of them vote for those people like Mitch McConnell. Boomers are the reasons those people are elected.

I AM LITERALLY A ZOOMER DUDE, I think I know best how people in my generation think (right-wingers included), unless you're a zoomer as well (which I highly doubt or you most
probably wouldn't be saying things like that). Nick Fuentes is marginalized in the right (right-wing zoomers included). Right-wing zoomers generally look at moderate right-wingers that most of the time are just anti-racists that don't subscribe to anti-white rhetoric. They look at people like Sydney Watson, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Blaire White, etc. And from one of the countries I am from there is the very moderate equivalent that is very popular among the youth.
Plus Nick Fuentes is really dumb because he's antisemitic and a revisionist. So I'm pretty glad he's marginalized among the right.

Once again, you dont know what you are talking about because you refuse to look into it for yourself. Everything the Nazis based their ideas on were past philosophies. Yes they do thinks like wanting impressive buildings, because that is literally a conservative thing to complain about modern ugly building styles and so on. Colonization is nothing new either. It's literally "the white mans burden" rehashed.

They based their ideas on past philosophies TO PROPOSE a new future. That's not conservatism. Plus there was no modern ugly building styles like there is today, at least clearly not as massively as now, so there's no link really.
You didn't understand my point. They PROPOSED a new future, whether it be something that has already happened in the past or not. The same way western countries implementing democracies wasn't conservatism although democracy was invented by the Ancient Greeks. Conservatism is about conserving and not proposing a new future. They were NOT conservatives.

Just because something happened even before you were born is irrelevan.t i was born after ww2 and America's founding, i still learned that stuff cause it's relevant. And Tony Blair didnt go away. he literally spends his time traveling the world to train politicians and governments, of which the current Italian leader is one of them. He is one of the major players in European and world politics.

Tony Blair is a detail, I never heard of him before in my entire life although I follow politics extensively for years. WW2 is not a detail, America's founding neither. Why would we learn about Tony Blair in schools for example ?
Okay well now I know he exists, good for him if he trains politicians and governments.
Tell me what do you think Giorgia Meloni should do then ? She did everything she could against illegal migration (and it worked !), she continues spreading conservative values in society the way Italian people want, what is she doing wrong concretely ? If Italians don't want to have children she can't force them to have sex and reproduce. Europeans are co-responsible of immigration. That's the realization they have to make. It's not just evil politicians. Although some certainly are evil, most politicians in Moldova, Romania, Poland, Hungary and so on and so forth aren't evil yet they are importing foreign workers because the population doesn't have enough children so not enough workers for the economy to continue growing quickly (and the standard of living). Oh, you're also going to say Viktor Orban is a traitor and was trained by Tony Blair ?

Did you ever stop and think maybe the same mainstream media that is leftist, and hates white people, would also lie to you about other things? Or do you think they only lie and mislead people about whites?

No, I look objectively with that in mind and ask myself : is it true or is it not ? And if it's true, it's not because it's anti-whites leftists that say it that it becomes not true. The same way it's not because the far-left says climate change is a problem doesn't make it less of a problem.

It's pretty obvious why you think the things you do. it's literally just what the mainstream taught you and you took it as fact instead of looking into it and figuring out it's lies and the world doesnt actually work that way. It's just a lie to get people to continue supporting establishments. They teach you that stuff so you think you can just vote red or blue and it makes a difference because after all "thats how democracy works" "lets go out and do another protest again, surely they will listen to us this time because protest is how you cause change"

You want to know the number of minutes I passed reading mainstream media since the beginning of this month ? Around 10 minutes. I don't trust the obviously biased mainstream media, therefore I don't read them.
You seem to just be religiously anti-establishment (and also a conspiracist) and not being able to have a more nuanced POV. You know, maybe not everything coming from the establishment and the mainstream media is a lie ? Have you ever thought about that ? Or you just continue listening religiously to the antisemtic and revisionist Nick Fuentes ?
Peaceful protests, like it or not, can make changes if they are well-organized. They can make a change because people can change their mind. Just look at how the AfD fell down in the polls after the far-left protested against it.

Corma said:

My point is that the median age of the population STILL is increasing although western countries are importing young people en masse, so the only solution is natality. Also, it is a multifactorial issue. In South Korea and Japan, there is a very strict culture centered around working and being productive, and studying well. There's a reason why they are one of the bests in terms of education. So it is pretty logical if we take into account not just the median age. But yes, they still have problems, hence the importation of foreigners too.

Once again, importing foreigners will only help the GDP not necessarily the GDP per capita. And in western cases foreigners are just a drain on the system so make the problem worse, cause not only do we have to pay for old people's pensions but now immigrant's welfare too. It's even worse in Europe that has more social services like public healthcare. look into the report that recently came out in UK about immigrant social service use.

Oh so now you're speaking of one person ? But we are speaking in terms of populations. And still, most of the jobs are in the tertiary sector, which is the most relevant in our debate as a consequence.

What applies to one person applies to many in that context. If one farmer can produce enough food to feed 100 people, or 1 farmer for 100 years, 100 farmers can produce enough food for 10,000 people or 100 farmers for 100 years. And it's even more so the case of tertiary jobs as many of them are just BS and drain resources so someone quitting those jobs would actual make things better.

Asian countries are STARTING to import en masse people, notably Japan. Japan started doing that last year and is planning on make politics that make it easier for foreigners to come and install themselves.

possibly, though highly unlikely it copies the west vs just doing what people do in the past, temporary work visas, but even if it does happens it wont be "Asian countries", it would be countries usa conquered. You wont see China or Vietnam doing it.

Okay let's go back to what you said. Your point was that India was not a good country to live in in comparison to the West although it has a big GDP, THAT'S WHY I made the point about GDP per capita, because only that matters when it comes to how comfortably one can live in a country. So yes, GDP per capita IS hat matters truly.

Yes i said that multiple times already including what u literally replied to. once again that is my point.

The jobs you are speaking about are a very tiny minority of all of the existing jobs and only in specific big companies. The vast vast majority of new jobs are due to increasing in consuming, urbanisation, new technologies and the need for more people to work is also due to the fact the population is ageing every single year.

Even if you wana say no small companies do it, (which many in liberal cities do), major corporations are still the largest employers. The top 500 companies account for pretty much the entire economy. Probably even bigger impact in euro countries where they have less of a history of free markets and smaller economies than USA.

So you don't even know for sure what you're talking about and you present that as a fact the same way gravity is a fact ?
Also, idk if it's just me but that doesn't make sense ? You are making one point then changing it to another point then to another one which is very confusing and frankly I am lost in what your argument is ? Please keep it consistent.

Maybe it's just that english isnt ur first language or something but ive only been saying the same thing i have since my first comment and i keep telling you you are reading things wrong or something.

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when you quote someone that has authority but is not expert in said domain, so yes I appeal to authority which is the most normal thing to do. Also, not 100% of climatologists agree there is a man-made climate change but the vast vast majority does, so it's pretty logical to say yes, there is climate change. It works the same for historians, although there isn't a 100% consensus, the fact the vast majority believes in a thing IS the reason why we are taught what we are taught in school.

lol no, appeal to authority is a fallacy even if the person studied in their field. College degrees dont make logic change. Climatology isnt a good example because climatologist are literally funded by the green lobbies and institutions so they are payed to support them, but regardless there is a difference between man made climate change and climate change being a crisis. And you are taught the things you are taught in school because the government wants you to be taught that. It has nothing to do with it being right or not. Just like how in Chinese schools they learn pro-ccp, things and in nazi germany they learned pro-nazi things.

Okay now I understand your point, but I don't think that in their heads they were pushing for communism, it's all the opposite. People, including elites, feared communism. Elites in the west were anti-communist and if you showed them what our world would look like today, they would mostly think it's ugly and extreme.

You know ww2 wasnt that long ago right? The elites who pushed the whole program are still alive or recently just passed away. So no, this was what they wanted to create.

The second part of your sentence also applies to right-wingers if it's what you want to believe in. But if you're not politicized and there is a debate between a right-winger and a leftist, then leftists do sometimes win, yes.

Right wingers tend to convince other people too, hence why they dont need censorship to get their way, unless u mean neocons.

Oh god you're so biased you can't even objectively look at whether someone lost a debate or not. The debate I saw the other day was featuring 3 right-wingers and 3 leftists (and 1 centrist) and the ones that won the debate overall was one of the most radical leftist and one of the more moderate right-winger, objectively. They were the most convincing on what they were saying and how, also when they were cutting people to contradict them. Although I agree with very few things with the leftist, still he won the debate overall. That makes one counterexample. With the number of debates on TV, radios and YouTube, there are many many leftists that won debates, and it's not the first time I see a leftist winning a debate over a right-winger. I have 2 other examples that come spontaneously in my head.

No idea what you are talking about but im sure there are examples of videos with a thousand views where some no named no one heard about make some show where they argue. those have no impact in the real world regardless of who won or lost.

I didn't watch the entire videos but I did look at all of the graphics and tell me if I am wrong, what is shows is that basically when richer people favour something, it's more likely to pass than when poorer people favour something, i.e. the influence of the opinion of richer people is more important than those of the poorer people ?
If I understood well those graphs, that just proves my point further that we need to propose an alternative future to the left to win over the cultural debate in universities (notably) again, to influence rich people to become more right-wing again. I don't see the problem with the fact the opinion of richer people have more influence since richer people tend to have a higher IQ (in great part for genetical reasons, because people predisposed genetically to have higher IQs tend to be more educated and have a better income, independently of whether they come from a poor or a rich family).

It wasnt just poorer people it was the middle class and median voter vs the top few percent of people. IE the elites. aka proving oligarchy not democracy. also it wasnt just more likely, if elites supported something but the middle class also did at the same time, it was less likely to pass than if only the elites supported it.

Source of your affirmation ? Because in Switzerland it's certainly not like that.
Imo being on the left is the worst you can do in terms of economy and being a conservative when it comes to social issues is the worst you can do so I'm pretty glad if the elites don't fully respect the wish of the majority. The best is being liberal in terms of economy and right-wing (but not conservative, I am anti-conservatism because it's the most useless thing in human history) socially.
Before the war we were not in a globalized world. Plus the economies were certainly not socialist nor communist and for the best. They were very capitalist and liberal. We CANNOT (it's IMPOSSIBLE) to go back to the economies we have before the war, literally. The world (Europe included) is a whole different place.

Yes, Switzerland is an exception americans tend to point twords as a good european country. The same is true about gun rights too, swiss have good gun rights vs the other western euro nations that dont. Im not left wing economic either, i just said most europeans are. Also no it isnt impossible to go back to economies of the past. that is literally what the Asian nations have. Nationalist and protectionist economies. The japanese automotive industry was built on protectionism.

I AM LITERALLY A ZOOMER DUDE, I think I know best how people in my generation think (right-wingers included), unless you're a zoomer as well (which I highly doubt or you most
probably wouldn't be saying things like that). Nick Fuentes is marginalized in the right (right-wing zoomers included). Right-wing zoomers generally look at moderate right-wingers that most of the time are just anti-racists that don't subscribe to anti-white rhetoric. They look at people like Sydney Watson, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Blaire White, etc. And from one of the countries I am from there is the very moderate equivalent that is very popular among the youth.
Plus Nick Fuentes is really dumb because he's antisemitic and a revisionist. So I'm pretty glad he's marginalized among the right.

Im pretty much on the cusp of being a zoomer, but regardless you are from some hyper liberal euro country i assume. america is more right wing. None of the zoomers here like ben sharpio and see him as controlled opposition as he is. Nick's antisemitism and revisionism is the least dumb thing about him. His statist views are what are dumb.

They based their ideas on past philosophies TO PROPOSE a new future. That's not conservatism. Plus there was no modern ugly building styles like there is today, at least clearly not as massively as now, so there's no link really.
You didn't understand my point. They PROPOSED a new future, whether it be something that has already happened in the past or not. The same way western countries implementing democracies wasn't conservatism although democracy was invented by the Ancient Greeks. Conservatism is about conserving and not proposing a new future. They were NOT conservatives.

Conservatives also want to change the modern society to a new future that they use inspiration from the past for. But yes, while it wasnt as prevelant as now, modern artistic styles started to become a big thing in germany before the nazis took power and was one of the things they used as an argument against to get power. They called it cultural bolshevism.

Tony Blair is a detail, I never heard of him before in my entire life although I follow politics extensively for years. WW2 is not a detail, America's founding neither. Why would we learn about Tony Blair in schools for example ?
Okay well now I know he exists, good for him if he trains politicians and governments.

That's like saying adolf hitler or george washington are details. They are the reason behind the things. You never heard of him before for the exact reason you have the views on politics you do. Cause your view is what you learned in government schools and mainstream media and they teach you what they want you o learn.

Tell me what do you think Giorgia Meloni should do then ? She did everything she could against illegal migration (and it worked !), she continues spreading conservative values in society the way Italian people want, what is she doing wrong concretely ? If Italians don't want to have children she can't force them to have sex and reproduce. Europeans are co-responsible of immigration. That's the realization they have to make. It's not just evil politicians. Although some certainly are evil, most politicians in Moldova, Romania, Poland, Hungary and so on and so forth aren't evil yet they are importing foreign workers because the population doesn't have enough children so not enough workers for the economy to continue growing quickly (and the standard of living). Oh, you're also going to say Viktor Orban is a traitor and was trained by Tony Blair ?

Victor Orban doesnt support mass immgiration, he also banned Geroge Soros' NGOs. He is an exception, but yes, that's what you are suppose to do, support politicians like Orban instead of Melonis, and have them go after the NGOs. You shouldnt even elect a woman to the head of state if you want a right wing society. You need a strong man that isn't socially influenced by corrupt people. What she was suppose to do is close the borders. she didnt because that wasnt the plan. (btw birth rates arent even a hard thing to change. Hitler did it, the Israeli government did it, you can just copy them. You literally just do the opposite of what the charity organizations said they would do in Africa to lower it's birth rate. If you know how to lower the birth rate like they go to 3rd world countries to do, you know how to do the opposite to raise them)

No, I look objectively with that in mind and ask myself : is it true or is it not ? And if it's true, it's not because it's anti-whites leftists that say it that it becomes not true. The same way it's not because the far-left says climate change is a problem doesn't make it less of a problem.

But if you dont even really look into things urself you arent actually doing that. What you are actually doing is hearing things from the mainstream and if you dont hear another mainstream source or person countering it you just accept it as true, when the reality is it's still false, but they just suppress the dissident so you dont hear it in the first place unless you actually go out of your way to find it.

You want to know the number of minutes I passed reading mainstream media since the beginning of this month ? Around 10 minutes. I don't trust the obviously biased mainstream media, therefore I don't read them.
You seem to just be religiously anti-establishment (and also a conspiracist) and not being able to have a more nuanced POV. You know, maybe not everything coming from the establishment and the mainstream media is a lie ? Have you ever thought about that ? Or you just continue listening religiously to the antisemtic and revisionist Nick Fuentes ?

your cool history teacher counts as mainstream. it's not just CNN. i dont even listen to nick, he's mainly just a heel. I follow people that actually site studies and data like that guy i linked. I recommend you watch his archive of non-livestreams if you want to learn something.

Peaceful protests, like it or not, can make changes if they are well-organized. They can make a change because people can change their mind. Just look at how the AfD fell down in the polls after the far-left protested against it.

Peaceful protests literally do nothing. UK had it's largest protest of over a million people against the iraq war, UK still got involved in the iraq war. France has like the most protests of anywhere and it's by far the most far gone of western european nations. As for the AfD they are literally being wire tapped by the government as well as countless other legal persecutions. some leftist who are smaller in number than the people that support them and are 99% funded by the government are literally irrelevant. It's the state persecution that works. Being actually right wing is illegal in Germany, that is why the right is weak there. If you become right wing the government shuts the party down.

There are two types of protests. Ones the establishment don't support and those get labeled as far right dangerous extremists, and ones the government sponsors as a way to astroturf things. Neither do anything, as if the government doesn't support it, it's labeled as evil/extremist, and if the government does support it, the government already supports it.

Man you should just read Machiavelli and similar writers to learn the basics of how government power works. Practically everyone of the right goes through the phase you do when they are younger until thye learn how government actually works. You can probably find many people on this site that will say they were just like you 5 years ago.

fkiblaze said:

Victor Orban doesnt support mass immgiration, he also banned Geroge Soros' NGOs. He is an exception, but yes, that's what you are suppose to do, support politicians like Orban instead of Melonis, and have them go after the NGOs.

I feel like the tiny hats are gonna suicide him. Or disappear the people he loves, until he tows the line. They’re getting desperate because Russia and China are pushing their shit in.

AryanSuperSoldier said:

I feel like the tiny hats are gonna suicide him. Or disappear the people he loves, until he tows the line. They’re getting desperate because Russia and China are pushing their shit in.

Well considering he went after the NGOs early that is less likely. I think they will just do the simple thing, wait until his term limits are over, and then replace him with some woke lefty, so ultimately im not sure how the long term resistance of Hungary will be, cause he cant rule forever.

Once again, importing foreigners will only help the GDP not necessarily the GDP per capita. And in western cases foreigners are just a drain on the system so make the problem worse, cause not only do we have to pay for old people's pensions but now immigrant's welfare too. It's even worse in Europe that has more social services like public healthcare. look into the report that recently came out in UK about immigrant social service use.

Once again my point NEVER was that importing foreigners will help improve GDP per capita, it was that the country needed foreign workforce if the population didn't have enough children. I totally agree that we should completely cut welfare for foreigners and if they can't make enough money by themselves, we should send them back to their country. But even then by doing that, we would still need foreign workers in order to sustain the fact there are more and more old people and less and less young people in proportion.

What applies to one person applies to many in that context. If one farmer can produce enough food to feed 100 people, or 1 farmer for 100 years, 100 farmers can produce enough food for 10,000 people or 100 farmers for 100 years. And it's even more so the case of tertiary jobs as many of them are just BS and drain resources so someone quitting those jobs would actual make things better.

That's why there are way less people working in agriculture than before in Switzerland, yet we are more independent on that plan than 50-60-70 years ago so I don't understand your point ? I never negated that.
For tertiary jobs, tell me concretely to which jobs you are referring please.

possibly, though highly unlikely it copies the west vs just doing what people do in the past, temporary work visas, but even if it does happens it wont be "Asian countries", it would be countries usa conquered. You wont see China or Vietnam doing it.

Don't speak so soon, don't speak so soon. China have also serious problems linked to natality. To add to my argument, Russia wasn't conquered by the US but still, it is a completely islamized country where slavics are becoming slowly but surely a minority (like in the UK, France, Belgium, etc).
Western European countries also gave temporary work visas decades ago, after the 2nd world war. Who would have though in France or Germany that their countries would look like what they look today ? Nobody, it was totally unimaginable.
Also, yes I am in favour of only temporary visas with natalist policies. BUT STILL, they need these foreign workers because the population doesn't have enough children.

Even if you wana say no small companies do it, (which many in liberal cities do), major corporations are still the largest employers. The top 500 companies account for pretty much the entire economy. Probably even bigger impact in euro countries where they have less of a history of free markets and smaller economies than USA.

"The top 500 companies account for pretty much the entire economy" 🤡🤡🤡
Once again, those are a very small minority of all jobs. Please tell me concretely to what jobs you are referring because you seem to think most jobs in big companies are useless, which they are not.

Maybe it's just that english isnt ur first language or something but ive only been saying the same thing i have since my first comment and i keep telling you you are reading things wrong or something.

No, you are the one that's losing the thread of the conversation and then constantly changing the points you are making as the days pass, making it confusing because if we reread what you wrote, it's always a different point every time you answer.

lol no, appeal to authority is a fallacy even if the person studied in their field. College degrees dont make logic change. Climatology isnt a good example because climatologist are literally funded by the green lobbies and institutions so they are payed to support them, but regardless there is a difference between man made climate change and climate change being a crisis. And you are taught the things you are taught in school because the government wants you to be taught that. It has nothing to do with it being right or not. Just like how in Chinese schools they learn pro-ccp, things and in nazi germany they learned pro-nazi things.

Okay so you can't appeal to what a scientist said about cancer although he studied that all of his life ? Okay so you can't trust scientists, you can't trust informaticians, you can't trust lawyers, you can trust nobody because you can never appeal to authority then. I don't understand why big companies are hiring lawyers, you can't appeal to their authority, it would just be a fallacy.
*CON*SPIRACIST. The vast vast vast majority of climatoligists are funded by NOBODY. It's not just the ones you hear about the most, when we ask the small ones we never hear about and that are funded by nobody, the vast majority says YES, climate change is true and is a crisis. You are just a conspiracist and I could see that since the beginning of our conversation, you have the typical line of conspiracists : Evil elites vs non-elites that are the victims of elites, mainstream is necessarily wrong, everything that goes against my point is funded by the enemy, etc.
Also, you really are comparing the propaganda the nazis and cpp were/are doing in school to the propaganda in the west ? Yes there is propaganda in schools, but bruh ? Just no.

You know ww2 wasnt that long ago right? The elites who pushed the whole program are still alive or recently just passed away. So no, this was what they wanted to create.

Right wingers tend to convince other people too, hence why they dont need censorship to get their way, unless u mean neocons.

Idk who neocons are once again I don't live in the US, but yeah right-wingers once again in Western Europe tend to be just conservatives, meaning leftists from 20 years ago. In 2040, they will miss the good old time of 2020 when things were a bit less extreme far-left (if the right continues losing the cultural battle). No wonder they convince others. But it doesn't make a change at all.

No idea what you are talking about but im sure there are examples of videos with a thousand views where some no named no one heard about make some show where they argue. those have no impact in the real world regardless of who won or lost.

I am talking about a debate on television. I am also speaking of videos that have hundreds of thousands if not millions of views. And I don't live in the US, so that's a very substantial number.

It wasnt just poorer people it was the middle class and median voter vs the top few percent of people. IE the elites. aka proving oligarchy not democracy. also it wasnt just more likely, if elites supported something but the middle class also did at the same time, it was less likely to pass than if only the elites supported it.

It was SLIGHTLY more important when you saw the percentages. It doesn't prove anything, oligarchy is a precise term that you cannot apply to our democracies JUST because the elites have more influence (which is perfectly normal once again). The people VOTE for the elite. In France, they could elect Eric Zemmour, the same way the Italians voted for Giorgia Meloni. Guess what ? The people are responsible for the elite governing them. If they have shitty leaders, most of the time, it's because the population votes in majority in a shitty way.

Yes, Switzerland is an exception americans tend to point twords as a good european country. The same is true about gun rights too, swiss have good gun rights vs the other western euro nations that dont. Im not left wing economic either, i just said most europeans are. Also no it isnt impossible to go back to economies of the past. that is literally what the Asian nations have. Nationalist and protectionist economies. The japanese automotive industry was built on protectionism.

Gun rights in Switzerland is linked to the fact army is compulsory for men with the swiss citizenship and you can decide to keep your firearm or not at the end of your service. Also, I'm favourable to more gun regulation, wtf do you need a gun for ? I don't have a gun and never had a problem in my life, if you need a gun it's that the population is so violent that it needs to defend itself with GUNS, once again for me it shows how crazy americans tend to be.
Asian nations LITERALLY do not have economies of the past. They have modern globalized economies, which wasn't the case in the 1940s. Now if you want a protectionist economy okay that's another thing.

Im pretty much on the cusp of being a zoomer, but regardless you are from some hyper liberal euro country i assume. america is more right wing. None of the zoomers here like ben sharpio and see him as controlled opposition as he is. Nick's antisemitism and revisionism is the least dumb thing about him. His statist views are what are dumb.

I am from one of the most conservative Western European country so not really. And I was precisely born in the middle of the zoomer generation (if you know what I mean), as far away from gen y than gen alpha so I know it very well, from the oldest to the youngest part.
Nick's antisemitism and revisionism is the DUMBEST thing about him. This guy is a literal retard for saying things like that. His second dumbest positions is third-worldism and extreme conservatism. I really despise this dumb guy.
Oh my god, statism is the basis of what you have to have in order to live in a rich and prosperous society.

Conservatives also want to change the modern society to a new future that they use inspiration from the past for. But yes, while it wasnt as prevelant as now, modern artistic styles started to become a big thing in germany before the nazis took power and was one of the things they used as an argument against to get power. They called it cultural bolshevism.

Conservatives want the society to be static. It doesn't change. It's great as it is. And sometimes they just want to go back 20-30 years in the past, that's not a project in society, there's a difference between inspiring (which they don't, on the opposite of what you said) yourself from the past to propose a new future with newer technologies notably and being constantly nostalgic of the past saying how things were better before and we should go back in time for this this this and that. They always oppose leftists' new proposals for conservative reasons and not to propose an alternative future, that is the problem.
I know Berlin was really decadent for the time and tbh I don't really see a problem with that, a too traditional society isn't good imo. Also, nazis were paranoid and saw communism everywhere, the same way they saw jews everywhere so once again it shows how dumb they are because it hasn't anything to do with actual communism, it's more linked to modernity and a more comfortable life.

That's like saying adolf hitler or george washington are details. They are the reason behind the things. You never heard of him before for the exact reason you have the views on politics you do. Cause your view is what you learned in government schools and mainstream media and they teach you what they want you o learn.

You are comparing the importance adolf hitler and george washington had to tony blair. LMAO.
I can guarantee you people that I read that have 20-30-40-50 years more than me and that have the same views as me know very well about him and the still have their views.
Once again PLEASE READ WHAT I AM SAYING, HELLO quit ignoring the parts you don't like about what I am writing : I get my political views not from mainstream media nor school (or I would be very woke), but from EXTREMELY marginalized right-wingers almost seen as the new Hitler (although they evidently aren't as they aren't antisemitic, they are democratic, etc).

Victor Orban doesnt support mass immgiration, he also banned Geroge Soros' NGOs. He is an exception, but yes, that's what you are suppose to do, support politicians like Orban instead of Melonis, and have them go after the NGOs. You shouldnt even elect a woman to the head of state if you want a right wing society. You need a strong man that isn't socially influenced by corrupt people. What she was suppose to do is close the borders. she didnt because that wasnt the plan. (btw birth rates arent even a hard thing to change. Hitler did it, the Israeli government did it, you can just copy them. You literally just do the opposite of what the charity organizations said they would do in Africa to lower it's birth rate. If you know how to lower the birth rate like they go to 3rd world countries to do, you know how to do the opposite to raise them)

My point NEVER was that Viktor Orban supported mass-migration, my point was that even elites that evidently aren't evil and anti-white STILL make migrant workers come work in their countries BECAUSE they need migrant workforce BECAUSE people don't have enough children and there isn't enough young people in comparison to older people. How do you explain someone like Viktor Orban makes immigrants come in if no there's no problem with the population aging ? Out of pleasure ?

Oh yeah you keep ignoring the fact Meloni makes immigrants come in to WORK because young Italians are emigrating en masse and they have one of the lowest birth rates of Europe ? Once again, Viktor Orban does the SAME THING. Maybe a bit differently, yes, Meloni isn't perfect, but she isn't doing it because she's some sort of traitor.

Okay so what you're proposing to lower the birth rates is ban women getting more educated and contraception if I understood well ? Yikes, no thank you, because it's mainly what causes these low birth rates. Putin, the PiS (when in power), Orban, and many others are(/were) doing EVERYTHING in their power to try and make the natality rates rise. Sometimes it works, but only slightly, never ENOUGH (2.08 or more). If it was so simple as you said, Putin which is a dictator would have succeeded in doing it by now.

But if you dont even really look into things urself you arent actually doing that. What you are actually doing is hearing things from the mainstream and if you dont hear another mainstream source or person countering it you just accept it as true, when the reality is it's still false, but they just suppress the dissident so you dont hear it in the first place unless you actually go out of your way to find it.

We are speaking about how nazis saw french people (aryans or not ?). We are not talking about political things from nowadays. You speak like the people thinking the earth is flat, as if they would fake some ridiculous thing like that.

your cool history teacher counts as mainstream. it's not just CNN. i dont even listen to nick, he's mainly just a heel. I follow people that actually site studies and data like that guy i linked. I recommend you watch his archive of non-livestreams if you want to learn something.

Wow mainstream is inherently wrong and I should listen more to some obscure and isolated historian and believe him over what the consensus is.

Peaceful protests literally do nothing. UK had it's largest protest of over a million people against the iraq war, UK still got involved in the iraq war. France has like the most protests of anywhere and it's by far the most far gone of western european nations. As for the AfD they are literally being wire tapped by the government as well as countless other legal persecutions. some leftist who are smaller in number than the people that support them and are 99% funded by the government are literally irrelevant. It's the state persecution that works. Being actually right wing is illegal in Germany, that is why the right is weak there. If you become right wing the government shuts the party down.

I never said protesters ALWAYS won. It depends on so many things, including how organized they are. But yes, it can have an impact, specially in the mind of people, not necessarily on the politics of the government.
France has lots of protests and they are also part of the countries where people have to work the least and where welfare is the most generous in the Western world. See, that's what happens when we follow blindly what the majority wants. A country far gone.
You deny any causation between the fact the AfD was rising in polls and suddenly, when there were those big protests, they started falling down in polls ? Okay.
I never said the opposite for Germany, I was speaking about the fact these mass protests HAVE HAD an impact on the polls. So please answer on that instead of diverting.

There are two types of protests. Ones the establishment don't support and those get labeled as far right dangerous extremists, and ones the government sponsors as a way to astroturf things. Neither do anything, as if the government doesn't support it, it's labeled as evil/extremist, and if the government does support it, the government already supports it.

Yes but they can also be labelled as far-left and not being supported by the government. Look at how marginalized the far-left got in the eyes of the elites by being pro-Palestine and pro-Hamas in less than a year, in France. It's not necessarily anti-right-wing, even though it's way more frequent obviously, but it's due to the fact the left won the cultural battle, once again. If the right was winning the cultural battle, we would have the same things happening to the left / far-left.

Man you should just read Machiavelli and similar writers to learn the basics of how government power works. Practically everyone of the right goes through the phase you do when they are younger until thye learn how government actually works. You can probably find many people on this site that will say they were just like you 5 years ago.

Oh yeah it's obviously just my youth. And the people that agree with me that are 10-20-30-40-50 years older that write books that are sold in tens of thousands ? Shhhh, don't speak about those, it's not part of my argumentary. And the people that thought like you did and changed their opinion with time ? Shhhh, stop speaking about those, they don't exist. There is literally a whole movement growing in the french-speaking part of Europe of people that agree with me.
Plus, even if what you were saying is true (which it's not), it doesn't smh disprove my points. The majority isn't necessarily right. Look at how right-wingers marginalized themselves, the majority of right-wingers is responsible of that and they were wrong.