The truth about "dictator" Erdogan

The fact is that de facto and de jure one party states are the future of the entire world:

- PRC (CCP).
- Japan (LDP).
- Singapore (PAP).
- Russia (United Russia).
- Turkey (AKP).
- Thailand (military/monarchy together).
- Burma (military in collusion with political parties).

Etc.

The Chinese criticisms of party politics were always bang on - it purposefully divides and turns societies in against themselves. In heterogeneous societies like Turkey and the US this makes things even more fucked up and dysfunctional than otherwise would be, since the party politics is compounded with another layer of dysfunction of racial/ethnic conflict.

Erdogan is only taking this to its logical conclusion. Liberal democracy is hopelessly flawed, it continually produces low-trust, low-confidence governments whom everyone hates and who can't do anything meaningful. It corrodes law and order. It depletes the capital stock of a country through reckless economic policies like encouraging mass immigration.

It's a terrible system of government.

If you want to oppose Erdogan, then at least come up with something meaningful in his place. Even if it's just straight up military rule, because liberal democracy simply isn't working anymore. Anywhere.

Fuck off, roach.

Can anyone present me with some other alternative? Can anyone present me with some other solution?

Presently the President of France has a FIVE PERCENT APPROVAL RATING.

Do you think any King or Emperor or "Dictator" could live longer than a year with approval ratings that low?

Liberal democracy continually produces the worst, most ineffective leaders and administrators of public affairs imaginable.

Not even a Turk, I'm a Greek. My country has been ruined by liberal democracy, of course I'm going to hate it.

The only one of these states that has any kind of meaningful future unless WW3 breaks out is China.

By spouting your worthless opinion on a congolese egg-trading board you're using your right of free speech and information which is no longer guaranteed under the system you're advocating for. I'd take "flawed "over "potentially lethal for " every day.

Other way around. Look at France's major cities, look at Germany's gender imbalance ratio and the millions of MENAs they have taken in. Neither of these countries has a future.

>Not even a Turk, I'm a Greek.
I'm sure you are turkroach. I'm sure you are

Only 7 examples, with only a few being relevant?

Bugger off.

1) Britain doesn't have freedom of speech. I do in this environment because the format is anonymous, but plenty of people here have been arrested for saying mean things about nigs and browns on social media - under the "racially aggravated public order offense" criminal statute.

2) Good governance and being a majority in your country > Freedom of speech.

Funny coming from a German in any event. There is even less freedom of speech in your Bundesrepublik my man.

I see no problem with it desu, let's you get shit done without the other side fucking it up constantly

Most of the rest of the world is already illiberal, e.g the Gulf and North Africa. India's BJP is another example I could have used.

There you have the two largest emerging economies in the world alongside the largest resource economy.

Man, I even actually agree with you, but you aren't giving them compelling reasons as to WHY this is going to occur. Your examples are quite limited. India, Burma, and Thailand aren't what I would call successful states and the Gulf States don't exactly fit the kind of one party state you are thinking of.

TFW Russia is the only white country in the list.

>India, Burma, and Thailand aren't what I would call successful states

This is an appeal to the present day.

Western states didn't become wealthy because of liberalism, they became wealthy because of technological innovation.

>and the Gulf States don't exactly fit the kind of one party state you are thinking of.

Well no, they're monarchies. But they're still fundamentally illiberal. My point is for states that aren't de jure non-liberal democratic, the future is either chaos or de facto one party state status.

>TFW Russia is the only white country in the list.
>Slavs are white

...

whos that qt

and btw I like Erdogan, but still, the turks should gtfo of europe

You forget you are using a proxy?

People tho think there can't possibly be a society without democracy are idiots, kings and their courts were always doing things to keep favorability with the people.

...

The largest clients (by far) of western opinion pollers like Ipsos Mori are the Chinese Government.

They also use it in determining the evaluation process of officials every year.

...

the fact remains that turkey got so "good" in the first place in the 2000's with erdogan because his ministers were all well educated in west europe (he kicked them all out by now)

this could have a bad ending

...

Yeah that's Islam though, they have their current meal and no thoughts of the next.

Turkey and Russia have a fuckload of immigrants and sectarian bullshit as well, way more than Germany. I mean, fuck, you're saying Muslim immigrants are the reason Germany or France has no future while offering Turkey as a counterexample, come on.

The future will belong to the dreaded NWO unelected governments and you can bet the West is ahead on this shit, although the facade of liberal democracy will remain as an engaging entertainment for reality-tv addled morons. The difference is, instead of waving your dick and struggling to be a top roach like Erdo, it will be done quietly. Hell, it's already been going for some time now and I'm not even Alex Jonesing you.

Despite all the restrictions on free speech, I don't recall the chancellor/prime minister taking down twitter nation wide because a relative was revealed to be involved in corrupt state business. We might not have absolute free speech, but it's still better than the good old "getting shot for being opposition leader".

>2) Good governance and being a majority in your country > Freedom of speech.
True, but this is a commonplace even most democrats would agree on. The flaw is that people have a tencency to conserve their power, and if they're not forced to legitimize themselves in elections they will eventually die and leave that power to someone, suually a family member, who is either NOT a good governor, or doesn NOT have the majority of people behind him, or probably both. You could think of some system that would transfer power only to the capable, but the powers needed to supress the opposition during the reign could easily used to overgo any inheritance regulations of such a system.

In addition, most people are not in politics for the well being of their people. Turkey is a corrupt shithole, Putin is estimated to be one of Europe's richest persons, and don't even get me started on the Chinese, there are more billionaires in China's unity party than in the US' Congress. I know I'm getting robbed in Germany as well, but at least they don't get away with it that easily.

vucic and orban are running on the same exact model

>way more than Germany

You're wrong but I'll address part of your point here:

Churkhas rarely actually get PR or Russian citizenship. In Germany/EU27, basically anyone who turns up on your shores will invariably get some form of residency eventually. It's just the way the ECHR and the Acquis Communitaire works. For example Vladivostok used to have a shitload of Chinese migrants, but the authorities have deported a lot of them now. In a liberal democratic state that would be impossible. You cannot deport people quickly and easily, the (((judiciary))) have seen to that, using the (((separation of powers))) and (((due process))) arguments as their constitutional cover.

Also, Russia was 80% ethnic Russian in 1991 and its about 80% ethnic Russian today.

>while offering Turkey as a counterexample, come on.

Turkey is an Islamic state. France and Germany are not. Why are you even asking this?

We'll see in some years. Time will tell if Erdogan is just an power-hungry dictator or the saviour of Turkey

...

Vucic is a social democrat libtard though.

>I don't recall the chancellor/prime minister taking down twitter nation wide because a relative was revealed to be involved in corrupt state business.

Big deal, you still throw people in jail for thought crime.

>True, but this is a commonplace even most democrats would agree on.

Yeah, but you seem to miss the point here. What they believe in ACTIVELY PRECLUDES good governance. Go back to what I said here:

>For example Vladivostok used to have a shitload of Chinese migrants, but the authorities have deported a lot of them now. In a liberal democratic state that would be impossible. You cannot deport people quickly and easily, the (((judiciary))) have seen to that, using the (((separation of powers))) and (((due process))) arguments as their constitutional cover.

>legitimize themselves in elections they will eventually die and leave that power to someone

There is no legitimacy in elections anymore. It's a false choice between two or three different stripes of liberal, with everything else presented as so beyond the pale by the mass media that you may as well be the moral equivalent of a naziwhokilled6billionjews if you vote for them.

Liberal democracies just empower whoever owns the media and entertainment industries, that's all - since these are the people who manufacture social issues and shift paradigms of acceptability.

>most people are not in politics for the well being of their people.

I don't think you can deny the fact Putin, Erdogan and Xi Jinping are all nationalists by western standards.

By contrast a good portion of western politicians, especially social democrats, either explicitly say they don't believe in borders full stop or say borders are something they'd inevitability like to do away with.

There is no comparison. Our elites believe themselves to be part of a transnational elite, who transcend national identities and even broader racial ones.

Western elites are "true believers" now. They really do believe we are on the road to doing away with racial, religious, ethnic etc identities. We will all become radical individualists. This is why they see no problem with mass immigration - They see the bombs and the trucks as just a few teething problems before Muslim radicals realize the virtues of radical individualism with no sense of prior identity. No nationality, no race, no ethnicity, no religion, no broader family or kinship ties beyond what you "consent" to.

This is the liberal endgame. Erdogan's a fucking faggot sometimes, but he deserves credit for standing up to this sick, deranged view of mankind.

We're gonna fuck the scumbag United Russia over in 2018

What's your political position?

Classical liberal

yeaaaah... unless

lol cuck. Classical liberalism always leads to modern liberalism. Look at Western Europe. Once you start spouting shit about how all people are equal and the individual is the sovereign unit of society you always end up where we are now.

kek

Hilarious watching Sup Forums throw a fit over Erdogan win when they unironically supported Trump. Erdogan actually manifests everything that Sup Forums supports.

>socially conservative
>fiscially liberal
>supports free markets
>nationalist
>anti-feminist
>anti zionist
>anti globalist
>Wants to secure a future for the Turkish people (encourages birth rates)

Also hilarious watching Sup Forums literally using SJW cuck rhetoric.


>REEEEEEEEE everyone who voted for Trump is a racist bigot
>REEEEEEEEE everyone who voted for Erdogan is an islamist Jihadi

t. secular Turk who voted for Erdogan

Western liberal democracy is fucking killing us

There are so many people brainwashed into thinking its good, despite seeing the terrible results time & time again
Everything turns into a shitshow of a popularity contest, only popular things happen... Disasters like mass immigration continue forever because it never becomes a super major election deciding issue.

>Also, Russia was 80% ethnic Russian in 1991 and its about 80% ethnic Russian today.
The number of ethnic Russians and other ex-Soviet ethnicities like Ukrainians or Poles decreased between 2002 and 2010, while the number of Muslims, Asians, or Gypsies increased. And all of them have significantly higher birthrates than ethnic Russians. The fact that Putin pays lip service to nationalism (not racialism) is meaningless in the long run as more and more asses will be rising in the direction opposite to Mecca in the future. Sure, it's better than the naive hands-off approach of the EU, but if you think it will create any less of a powderkeg, you're going to be surprised.

If you think Russian services are able to deport wanderers effectively and it's just a matter of libruls in the courts, you're wrong simply because of sheer logistics of that shit.

>Turkey is an Islamic state
Officially, it's not, at least for now because soon it's going to change.

>Why are you even asking this?
Why are you using Turkey as an example of a meaningful one-party country is the better question when they just fucked themselves in the ass just so that Erdoroach can squeeze out an erection after all these years? China, Russia, and Turkey are completely different beasts and one-party system has fuck all to do with it.

>t. secular Turk who voted for Erdogan

As a Greek, I wish we had a leader who was half as smart or ballsy as him.

Only thing I've heard bad about him is that he gives Near Eastern "refugee" muds citizenship.

>The number of ethnic Russians and other ex-Soviet ethnicities like Ukrainians or Poles decreased between 2002 and 2010

The demographic stats I've looked at put ethnic Russians at around 80% in 1991 and at around 80% today, with the bulk of non ethnic Russians being indigenous foreigners like Buryats and Tartars.

>asses will be rising in the direction opposite to Mecca in the future.

The birth rate of Chechnya and Dagestan were around 2.1 - just around replacement rate. It's hardly as bad as the Brits have with regards to apes like Somalians and Pakistanis.

>and it's just a matter of libruls in the courts

It's a matter of both the judiciary and the statutory laws surrounding it, as well as the fact most European courts will bend to the ECHR (e.g. right to a private and family life appeals against migrant deportation when they have family members already here).

If you think liberal democracy doesn't massively retard our ability to deport these people you're clueless. Common law actually makes it markedly worse, by the way, since it significantly easier to engage in judicial activism in common law countries.

>Why are you using Turkey as an example of a meaningful one-party country is the better question when they just fucked themselves in the ass just so that Erdoroach can squeeze out an erection after all these years?

I have no idea what you're ranting about here. Erdogan's record on the Turkish economy and living standards is overwhelmingly good.

>free speech

Europe has no free speech
In spain you can go to prision for hate spech and in your contry for the nazi salute

>Being a liberal
>in Russia

Actually a lot of Russians educated in 90s-2000s are liberals. It's just that it doesn't matter for election results. Somehow.