I'm a leftie. Why aren't you one?

Hit me up bois

but he's raising his right hand, YOU'RE A SNAKE!!!

Logic & Reason > Emotions

I agree. Are you a rightwinger, though?

Randall is always a snek

If you take countries by their overall level of homogeneity, you find that the most successful and stable countries tend to be the most homogeneous, meaning diversity is not a strength and is instead a weakness.

Therefore the current immigration policy of most western countries is blatantly disregarding facts to the detriment of the stability of their nations.

You can be a lefty, but being pro mass immigration is an irresponsible position to hold.

Thats actually a really fantastic point you make there. Nationalism is progressive.

Why would I be for mass immigration? I think nearly none of those middle easterners should be allowed in Europe. If your values are blatantly incompatible with democracy, you should not be able to become a citizen.

I think that Europe should build a huge camp in northern africa and house the "incompatible" aka conservative muslims in there.

why does it matter, as long as he is rational?

Which one are you doing to choose, deportation or rope?

I doubt I'll be deported since Finland is very "lefty" but if it were come to that, I'd take the rope any day.

Look at the title of this thread.

Why do you think its okay to call niggers European yet if we travel to another part of the world, you cannot call a European a Chinese.

Is this you admitting defeat and endorsing the ethnic takeover. The white genocide is probable.

you are okay in my book. we can debate policy, but debating facts is my beef with the "the cult of the left" which is the term i use for people who have buried their heads in the sand over a host of issues because of political correctness

Here's the thing, I'm somewhat liberal in a lot of ways. I'm just totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to immigration, miscegenation and a handful of core moral values. Besides that I'm willing to have a welfare state provided it's economically feasible, support public education provided it's not somehow worse than none at all, etc. I don't necessarily have an issue with government's role in my life, I just want it in competent hands and to stop promoting degeneracy while trying to destroy any identity and culture white Americans have left. Our current system is almost viable, if only we didn't have two-timing charlatans running it. Trump included, though he's one of the least bad, if not the least bad.

But I see that you're from Canada, unless you're proxying I guess. So are there any of these leftists that you describe as the followers of the cult of the left, or are they just a myth. I've never seen one anywhere, except some low quality riot fights from the US.

So you could consider yourself a leftist, since you are for a welfare state?

I think nationality and ethnicity are two different things. European isn't an ethnicity. "Nigger" is an ethnicity. Someone being born and raised European can therefore be a nigger.

Because I'm not a teenager anymore

Yup man, right wing economically and socially.

If you're classical liberal maybe we could agree on some things.

What are you views?

Reported

The knowledge of correct terminology isn't great on my end, sorry. Not too sure what being socially right wing means.

Anyhow, I don't think I entertain any thoughts that could be classified as right wing, so I'm not sure if we agree on much considering politics.

I'd say one of my core values when it comes to politics is this: Everyone should do as much as they are able to. Everyone should receive as much as they need.

We can discuss the classification and evaluation of these "abilities" and "needs" if you want. But do you agree with me on that core value?

is being a leftie a crime on pol lol. Talk about freedom of speech.

it might be different in finland but in North America our entire main stream media is part of the cult of the left.

Accusations of racism and sexism and islamophobia have created a climate where making a bad joke can lose you your job

If you say you want to deport illegal immigrants you are labelled a racist.

the cult of the left can more accurately be described as the politically correct left, who I call a cult because they think reporting crime is bad because it will increase racism. these people exist and they can ruin your life if you step out of line

Look it up. Teenagers are the most conservative right-wing individuals of the 21st century. It's the millennials and Gen X that are the leftists.

Hmm. I agree with you on that the term "pc cult" is more apt. Though, I guess since international unity is an important part of the Marxian left, I can see how you'd call the the cult of the left.

Still though. I'd like to remind everyone that this pc cult/ cult of the left, isn't the entire left, just as fascism isn't the entire right.

So you grew up, realized that there is no objective morality and therefore threw ethics out of the window from politics?

> Not too sure what being socially right wing means.

>Preserve our culture and heritage.
>Pro-life.
>Pro law and order.

>Everyone should receive as much as they need.

You mean equal opportunities for everyone? Or free gibmedats? are u socialist?

The Finster would be 100% Trumpist

I know but I use the term to create a divide between normal left wingers and cultists. the cultists are in control and putting us on a self-destructive path, ignorant to our problems while they complain about non-issues. i use the term so as to promote detach the rational left from the people who might agree on certain issues but are cultists. i want the rational left to see themselves as fundamentally other to the cultists so that we can promote left-right cooperation against the cult

Yes, equal opportunities. BUT, if someone is unable to fulfill their duties (such as handicaps), they should still be given what they need not only to survive but to live as well.

And I think a part of all cultures should be given room to flourish, but if some are dying out, they shouldn't be preserved at all costs.

I am not pro life, I'm pro death.

I'm pro law and order too, though, didn't even know that was a thing. Who in their right mind would be pro anarchy and chaos.

>Everyone should receive as much as they need.
By who? What magical organism will deliver everyone their basic needs? There is none. It's impossible. Socialism? Communism?

>inb4 socialism is great and works in western countries 'cuz we special
Never came to your mind why all the most successful companies are American? Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Oracle and so many others. Sure Europe has some, but many have their best days behind them already.

Socialism is a strangle hold on people. Welfare is breadcrumbs traded for obedience.

but i call it the cult of the left because fundamentally because the cult defines themselves primarily in opposition to the right, meaning everything the oppose is the right, so other leftist who disagree on some things are seen as "the right" to them

...

But isn't it strange to try to get leftists go against "the cult of left". I think you'd be much more appealing to the left, if you called this cult the cult of pc. But that's just my two cents.

I used to be one.
then I realised that even under a leftist govt I will never own slaves & still have to work every day.

Well I think if we distribute wealth in a rational way, we will be able to both let hard working people flourish and give people in need a helping hand.

I don't see how making an argument for the success of American companies under capitalism is of any relevance.

that's a golden meme. Saved. Thanks.

But work is in the heart of every true leftist. Work is the only thing that steers the dialectical progress of matter.

...

>Everyone should receive as much as they need.
Commies get out. REEEEEEEEEEEE

"FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH"

>Everyone should receive as much as they need.
Commies get out. REEEEEEEEEEEE

Do you see the hypocrisy here?

Well it's relevant if you use their services. And if you want those jobs made in Finland for Finns.

But anyway. I think you are a centrist with a bleeding heart. Life is a struggle and making people "happy" is impossible. Under any system. Or if you have a cure for human condition (being unhappy what ever you have) then lay it on me. I'm not close minded, I've just seen people with a lot still bitch and moan all day. And let's be honest, those african jungle bungo tribes are much happier than the modern westerner.

That show taught me more than any other thing on tv, I swear.

which show is it?

If you truly think that those "african jungle bungo tribes" are happier than the modern westerner, then doesn't that mean that we have a lot to learn from them? If happiness and the lack of unhappiness and suffering isn't at the core of our society, then what is?

Recess?

Recess.

>The scheming merchant is a lefty

What is it with you and the hatred for Jews? I mean I hate religion at all its forms as much as the next guy but what's with the antisemitism? At least Jews don't kill people in the western world. Jews don't do missionary work so the religion stays within the family. Now that I think about it, I think Jews are the least bad of all religious people. What do you think?

work is boring, same fucking shit every day.
get a job elsewhere and again its just the same shit every day.
If leftists repealed slavery I would vote for them.

>Well I think if we distribute wealth in a rational way

That won't happen. Look at social security in America. If the money paid in taxes was invested people would be magnitudes better off. That's the fundamental problem with governmental redistribution of wealth, it's corrupt and results in bad policies.

Stop replying to recruiters

Jews push for diversity abroad, but demand purity within Israel.

desu senpai he just said you should gtfo off his platform, not that you shouldn't be allowed any platform for your speech. You're entitled a platform, not every platform, for your speech.

> Who in their right mind would be pro anarchy and chaos.

Most modern leftist would have this view point. They want to weaken men, disarm and weaken the police force.

> Yes, equal opportunities. BUT, if someone is unable to fulfill their duties (such as handicaps), they should still be given what they need not only to survive but to live as well.

well people like that deserve support. But I'm against social welfare as whole though as it means bigger government and people getting trapped into
a welfare state

What is with american's and the incapability to talk about anything that is not concerning america. Imagine if I were to talk about social philosophy and politics on a grand scale, and would keep bringing up the practical aspects of my country Finland. You'd have no clue what we were even talking about, since the Finnish form of government is vastly different from the American form.

Nonetheless, even if social security was a complete failure in America, how is this an example of the impossibility of distributing wealth rationally. I could point you an endless amount of cases where wealth was distributed rationally under capitalism and socialism.

...

Am I a jew recruiter now? Climb out of your arse and have a discussion for a change.

One of the requirements for being a member of the left in my country is being completely delusional about Islam, claiming that mass immigration is not a problem and supporting the EU.
I don't think I'm ready to do that.

Do you think there's a network of Jews that communicate with one another? I don't see how an Israeli jew and another jew having different opinions from one another is evidence for your claims.

Hitler of course killed the Jews because they were innocent :^)
not because they were a big part of the elite in Germany during the Weimar republic and because they played a big part in communist revolutions in both Germany aswell as Russia
also
>distributing rationally
>to someone's needs
I really need the state to gib me an iphone desu

How will the people in need receive help without a government helping them? Do you think all the people in need will receive help from helpful Samaritans?

What requirements. One's political view is defined by your own personal views and beliefs.

>social security
oh you mean the rational decision to distribute wealth to minorities which should be deemed failures to every normal person? like how there are 20k somalis here and 70% are in welfare...we're definitely incentivizing them to get a job, and it sure was a rational decision to give them money whilst students get loans

I wouldn't classify an iphone as a part of anyone's needs.

And please tell me how all of the people who were killed in death camps were part of this elite. Were the children who died there also a part of this German elite?

There are loads of Christian charities in the US, for all the people in need, why do you require a government for redistribution if all give what they can and all take what they need?

You're making a strawman fallacy here. I clearly stated that my core value is that everyone does what is in their capabilities and gets what is in their needs. Thus, if someone doesn't do the best that they can, they shouldn't receive everything they need. I think a socialist state would either have to banish incompatible people, or "reeducate" them.

If all gave what they could and took what they needed, there'd be no need for a government. You're right. But this isn't how the people raised under capitalism work. Most people seek after what is the best for themselves, which is completely understandable. I just think that a war veteran whose limbs were blown off should start begging people for money. I think the government should give them what they needed.

Government shouldn't be a charity.

People do give money to charities if they have plenty and if they have a good moral upbringing. Making government a charity in practice means
>people will be hired to do something
>they know if they're successful they'll be out of job
>they will do nothing and keep their government job
>people think their money is well spent
>bureaucrats win, politicians win, everyone else loses

Whereas a charity has to show results to get the good Samaritans, government can just force you to pay.

Perhaps you're right on the more or less "guaranteed" efficiency of charities. But your form of charity lacks the ability to, as you said, "force" money to themselves. This means that a privatized charity is likely to fail in helping each and everyone that is in need.

Because :
1°) I don't want none of these filthy economic migrant to leech off welfare while I barely earn anything myself with an average job.
2°) Demographics are not in our favor, and there are literal no-go zones which have been inhabited by migrants from maghreb, sub-saharan Africa & the middle east for already more than 3 generations.
3°) Christianity, and its core values promoting tradition and family, is dying.
4°) Rural France, hence a huge part of french culture, is dying, and the govenment isn't doing shit about it.
5°) I actually care about the future of my country. I look at facts & statistics (some of which are unfortuntaley some are censured by our government) before having imagination and an utopia mindset.

Honestly finnfriend, I used to be a leftist, but then I've learnt it doesn't work in a heterogenous society. Please don't commit the mistakes France made.

Finland has already made huge mistakes similar to France. The next two weeks will tell us the future of Europe on a grander scale. I just wish that you'd remember that I don't disagree with any of the points you made, and I'm a leftist. What you're arguing against is multiculturalism and globalization at all costs.

You wouldn't. Who're you to decide that? I would otherwise, so we're at an impasse already. What are needs, how would you define them, who would be the ones defining them? The people? We all get to vote on shit we get for free? So all of us gets a nice big car, KFC wings, a computer and smartphone, for free? How would that work out...

Gypsies are a horrible minority to subject a people to, killing them off is doing humanity a favour. Jews have a tendency to perform, they rise to the top quickly if placed in a society, and from there, they influence the rest of society from their ideals. Taking them out of society is not too bad either. Only killing gays and bisexuals seems to me somewhat extravagant. Just because you killed some people for the wronh reasons doesn't mean you couldn't also kill a lot of people for the right ones. Killing off gypsies and jews have been overall good choices.
>muh children
k people die in wars and you can't save everybody, those children would never have a normal life anyways, sadlyfe

I'm not addressing your core value, just addressing the fact that even in the best of societies, minorities, inegalities in the homogeneity of the population will create segregation, sometimes alienation, which will lead to some of those groups not wanting to do their best and will lead to those groups taking advantage of the rest. I'd say this is inherent to a larger society and wouldn't ever be fixable without shedding blood or not adopting such a system. These people abuse society, because society lets them, it ingrained in them the thought that they can use society in this way, and that the people, as which they don't see themselves, around them are okay with it. How will you fix this in socialist society? Blood and camps?

I meant that it'll be a recurring problem and can happen with any non-homogenous group, which is pretty much every society ever as geography is still a thing

>Do you think there's a network of Jews that communicate with one another?
Yes, it's called AIPAC

I used to be left wing when most people around me were right wing. Now msot people I interact with are left wing so i'm right wing.

I have no convictions or principles, I just go whatever has more bantz.

Indeed. Low taxes and culture of giving would be complimentary. I think people are willing to give to causes that affect their communities and especially if they see good results.

The politicians could make a big show about how big their heart is by donating to charities, and people would surely give to their cause.

Also important note is that competition is the only thing that breeds excellence. Government kills competition. Most of the time when I see lefties proposing bigger government, I think why can't that be done under capitalism. Is it just that those people have so low opinion on humanity that they don't think average citizen would be willing to pay so they must be forced. Or is it just the law of least effort at play.

I don't buy that for a second. Man isn't born as a leech. Man is a work loving animal driven by curiosity. Capitalism breeds the thought of valuing the results more than the work itself. This sets mankind astray from the real goal IMO.

People who are raised in a proper socialist country will try to be as productive as possible. If some still want to abuse the system, they won't be a part of the society.

I'm not even going to argue against your views on the holocaust. We have too different views on human value, jews and gipsies. I don't share your view of seeing the jews as inherently snake-like or such. I guess we could discuss that, but I think it'd be just a bunch of autistic screeching.

give me a source of one working academic historian/sociologist who believes in such a thing.

how edgy of you. I bet your morals are for sale for the highest bidder. how cool

I don't disagree one bit with you on the competition. I just think competition to excellency at all costs isn't a viable plan.

I would gladly behead you, this is my answer. bye