Things are getting a big confused here. Who are the cucks - the "cuckservatives", which is how it started...

Things are getting a big confused here. Who are the cucks - the "cuckservatives", which is how it started, or the neo-liberals, or the SJWs?

Or is just a generic term for people you disagree with by now?

If you admit the Holocaust happened you're just a tool of the Jews and a cuck.

It is a term for people who hate themselves, their people, their country, their culture, and want to give everything away that the generations before them had worked so hard for just so they can have a nigger like their facebook post.

All of them
Neocons are just as bad as SJWs

And they were absolutely right. Most non-nationalist parties across France were in fact strongly in favor of disarmament in the face of Hitler's rise. Their rationale was that if the "good guys" would unilateraly put down their weapons, Hitler would stand down.

These lunatics are the reason that France was defeated so goddamn quickly by the Germans, whose army was statistically inferior at the beginning of the war.

A cuck is someone who humiliates themselves in a way that they think benefits them, but doesn't.

e.g. republicans who want to be soft on immigration

Actually many historians would agree that Poland was the last goal of that militant german regime.
If that had passed without war, his next target would've been the USSR, and that would be in the future, when Italy is prepared.

Of course this is hindsight, and I completely agree with you that given the information that they had at the time, french politicians should've been arming the Maginot line and supporting and fortifying Belgium.

Literally meme magic

Very succinct, I like it.

On the workers vs businesses axis, where do the two american parties lie?
Are the republicans meant to be the labor party, while the democrats are the business party?

Both the right and left are cucks.

The only non-cucks are those who understand that this whole political shitfest of Right VS Left is a game played by the elites. Whichever side wins, we lose.

They are both business parties

Dem used to be more about labour but dropped that aspect decades ago
Reps used to be about free market business various freedoms but dropped that decades ago as well

Left vs Right is a meaningless term in itself, but the idea of putting two opposing views on an axis and declaring where you want to stand is useful.

The problem comes when parties that stand on different sides of the different axis claim to be "left" for example, when in some situations they are "right".

If we have these axis:
>closed borders vs open borders
>planned economy vs free market
>welfare state vs no mandatory social services
>political isolationism vs imperialism/interventionalism
>big government vs small government (in terms of regulation, tax, etc)
>mandatory service vs private armies
>progressive tax vs flat tax
>regulated media vs free speech
>control on drugs/guns vs free drug usage and gun ownership
>collectivism vs individualism

And so on, and so on. Is there any party that is always leaning on one side? No. Which is why there is no "left" party.
And that is also why I don't say I support this or that party, or this or that political movement. There isn't any party that I 100% agree with. There are issues on which their policies differ from my opinion.
More so, parties change their policies so often, that any person who says supports them must also incidentally by chance change their opinion at the same time, int he same way, to continue supporting them. What a coincidence!

So the left-right thing is fine, as long as you say what issue you are left-right on.

repubs are neither. for all independent businesses and workers (small business)

dems are both in collusion. gov/business "cooperation" while labor unions herd cattle to control opposition.

problem is repubs gave up on the workers over the past half century

Typically the workers/labor party will be against immigration, because that would drive wages down from the bigger supply of workers, and immigrants being prepared to work for smaller wages.
Similarly, the business party will be for immigration, because businesses enjoy the flow of cheap workers.

Its funny in England, where in the past decade the "labor" party was pro-immigration, while the "business" party was anti-immigration.

So did the dems
When was the last time they threw a bone to the union workers?

>Business party will be for immigration
Not necessarily just like they won't necessarily be for complete open trade

this is from the english civil war
notice the flag in the top middle of the royalist side?

Well, its not necessary, but it's sensible. If they aren't, then they aren't really the business party, and are cheating their supporters.

Immigration is pro-business, and anti-worker, in almost every way, and certainly in the general sense.

The thing is you assume the pro worker party is necessarily nationalist to some degree when I can tell you in the West that is rarely the case
The worker/union parties have been internationalist and globalist for quite some time

The business parties are the only ones that have kept any semblance of nationalist nation first thought which is why you see them being more anti immigration

>implying this true

You've been watching too much red team propaganda. At the moment they're basically the same on almost all issues at the national level (war, immigration) except taxes. The local and state level is more varied. Both parties alienated large parts of their supporters, hence Trump and Bernie getting a lot of votes. Trump is literally the corporatist (before you rage at least google the term) candidate and Bernie was the socialist candidate. The RNC and DNC are both neoliberal, with some other (Dems - social democrat, Reps - libertarian and Christian conservative/neocon) elements.

Goldwater was the last serious non-neoliberal candidate tbqh. Reagan was lord of neocons.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN MAGIC

>Immigration is pro business
Not necessarily
Prove it

Sure you can make an argument about wages going down but you could also make the argument that no borders is pro business but is it really?
Is it pro business to destroy the nation you make your revenue from?

Similarly open free trade isn't pro business either

The only people who benefit from these sorts of things are businesses that have already made it and made it big
Businesses just starting out see either nothing from these policies or negative effects on their business

Okay, lets be clear here.
On one side, are the facts - abundance of cheap workers and international business opportunities with low or no tax is good for business.

On the other side are OPINIONS. Not everyone would agree that immigration destroyed countries, or that opening borders for trade ruined a country.
Your "prove it" seems to fit here better than in the above statement, that is largely common sense and you too seem to agree with.

Businesses do benefit from open border policies, regarding people and trade, as long as you are talking about a big, rich country.
For Mexico or Venezuela open borders would just mean foreign business invading and killing the local one, and brain drain as your educated people leave, but for the USA its a big boost to businesses.

Too bad good for business generally means business owners making more profit for themselves while giving nothing back to the economy. If I have a cotton farm that I'm normally paying folks $5s a day to pick, then suddenly I get a bunch of slaves that work for free, am I going to start selling cotton for a lower price? Of course not. In fact I'm probably going to buy out all the cotton plantations in the area, then RAISE the price of cotton.

Do me a favor, fucking leaf, never pretend to know anything about the politics of the United States ever again.

White SJWs are cucks because they support their own destruction.

Cuckservatives are called so because they're trying to be conservatives and appeal to cucks.

>Businesses do benefit from open border policies
No they dont
Not at all actually
In fact it kills businesses because start ups can't compete with globalized Wal-Mart

What made America great was a closed border, free trade between the states, and little immigration outside of the necessity for nation growth
This is what our business party used to stand for

I think you believe that business is inherently anti nation but I completely disagree
From my perspective the workers party has been the most damaging thing to america

>Not everyone could agree that immigration destroys countries
If people want to ignore facts that's fine with me but that doesn't make them less factual

See your problem is that you're a Marxist so you've broken everything up between the proletariat (workers) and the bourgeois (business)

The fact is that a business party can be for example pro closed borders and pro racial purity because it's never just a business party

In America for example you have to get 270 electoral college votes in a presidential election
That means you have to have some support of the common which means you can't just be pro business or pro worker
That's not good enough

You reconcile being anti immigration and believing businesses have a right to deny faggots wedding cakes easily

Cuck is the new autism.

Another memeword for trolls and buzzword for social media.

If you're smart, you will utilize synergies from owning multiple plantations to lower your costs and thus allow you to lower your prices and seize market share to end up with ultimately greater profits, while putting the thumbscrews to less lean competitors (with a net price benefit to purchasers).

If you raise prices (supposing you have the market power to do so), others will see the raised prices and think it will be worth their while to buy up other land, set up a cotton plantation, and undercut you to seize your market share. This is why monopolies that are not backed up by government force naturally fail. Plenty of large retailers (for whom it seldom makes sense to integrate vertically) have smashed would-be supplier monopolies/oligopolies by supporting upstarts to ensure that the market from which they buy is and remains competitive.

Ultimately, competition means that profits go into investment (directly or by loans at an interest), which is used for further development. Your purchase of cotton plantation raises asset prices (driving further investment, as the inflation of asset prices incentivizes capital investment that will produce said assets) and raising the price of cotton will only draw competitors.

It no longer means anything

It's just a slur
I don't know why people get so worked up over it

Like what would've changed if he had said faggot instead?
Not much but I don't think cuck and faggot are the same thing it's just they can be used to describe the same thing

When you're actually seriously using cuck or faggot it takes on a different meaning

>people who disagree with me are factually wrong, though i wont and cant prove anything

>people who disagree with me are marxists

Lads, stop with the tumblr behavior please.