1. Your Country

1. Your Country
2. Why is it that always the most liberal places are the most successful ones in every part of the world? Why is it that they are rich as fuck?

Attached: P2270805.MOV.09_24_20_08.Still001.jpg (3794x2134, 1008K)

Other urls found in this thread:

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/15/educational-divide-in-vote-preferences-on-track-to-be-wider-than-in-recent-elections/
finanzen100.de/finanznachrichten/wirtschaft/wolfsburg-und-ingolstadt-ueberraschend-diese-beiden-deutschen-staedte-sind-reicher-als-alle-laender-auf-der-welt_H210342497_390323/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Singapore
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Conservative/religious country = less developed country

Even japs are becoming liberals.

People with a higher level of education tend to vote to the left.

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/15/educational-divide-in-vote-preferences-on-track-to-be-wider-than-in-recent-elections/

because conservatism is rooted in fear and success requires risk-taking

Liberalism is not the cause but the consequence

>Berlin
>Succesful
>Rich

W-What?

>Hamburg
>New York
>San Francisco
>Toronto

and it goes on

Also, Berlin has a pretty big industrial output desu. And you can't factor in the Soli, as it's forced and listed in the statistics too.

ehh the richest communes here always vote right wing

>hamburg
kek

It's the richest city and the city with the highest GDP

Attached: 12t.jpg (658x257, 40K)

>Why is it that always the most liberal places are the most successful ones in every part of the world?

Because prosperity + population density > social atomisation/alienation > "liberalism".

By what metric are those places more liberal than whatever you are comparing them to?

My city has twice as much GDP per capita than Hamburg and is very very right winged.

Also calculating cities GDP is inacurate since many people working there (creating value) don't live there (don't count as capita).

name it and post your source

Because most liberals are born in, or move to, urban population centers. Life in a rich and wealthy place, like a city, where you live your life in a percieved bubble of safety and protection, creates a liberal mindset. Rural living, revolves around a bigger sense of self reliance, and responsibility, which are generally traits of conservatives.

Higher IQs.

Here:
finanzen100.de/finanznachrichten/wirtschaft/wolfsburg-und-ingolstadt-ueberraschend-diese-beiden-deutschen-staedte-sind-reicher-als-alle-laender-auf-der-welt_H210342497_390323/

One of the mentioned cities there is my home city.

Also Singapure.
It's a city that is very conservative and brought to its greatness in a dictatorship.

I'm sure these places are recognized everywhere in the world and have some sort of say

This is the real reason for western city liberalism.
Social Alienation.

Singapore does.
Asians in general are very conservative and also their rich succesful world cities stay conservative.

They wont and Singapore is pretty open to westerners and what they would call "foreigners". It is the most liberal place in this area, when you look at other Malaysian cities.

They're intertwined - on one hand, people with higher IQs will be liberal, and will succeed. On the other, people who are conservative have no sense of social decorum, and will find it difficult to make networks in a non-traditional society. All the while, these communities give birth to liberal ideologies as class boundaries become the dominating factor in social interactions. Compare this to conservative communities, which, because of the stupidity of their residents, continue to fall deeper into disrepair. In these communities, a financial class structure leaves everyone indistinguishable, so they fall to lower means of hierarchy like race and gender.
It's embarrassing, really. We just use the hicks to grow us food, so that we don't have to get our hands dirty. But sometimes they get out of line.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Singapore

"Whilst the inflow of immigrants and foreign workers have helped to alleviate a labour crunch and help the economy, it has also resulted in strong sentiment by the locals against both foreigners and the government, and was a major issue in both the 2011 general and presidential elections."

This dumb conservative meme isn't true and can be disproven easily.

Additionaly conservative != racist

That's only half-accurate here. Wealth correlates with voting Conservative, Inner London is the only real exception.

Also to mention: Malaysia is Muslim therefore obviously shit.

I think this thread showed some thoughts into the liberal arrogance to consider the opposing oppinion as simple stupidity and add a little more seriousness to the discussion.

Thank you.

I go to sleep.

cringe

1. U R Gay
2. We are atheists, have gay marriage, abortion, legal pot, etc and this place is still a backwater shithole...

I'm referring to republicans, classic american conservatives. Almost all republicans are to some degree racist (regardless of what they claim), take it from a dude who has spent a ton of time around people from both sides of the american political spectrum.
But yes, I concede that this is not the case for the term "conservative" in general and I should have been clear about that.
Republicans ARE in fact patently stupid, though.

He describes actually aspects of "social alienation"
He is not cringe but has some very fundamnetal aspects in his view.

People in a city have way less deepened relations to other people. Social interaction stays in superficial level compared to rural population. This creates an easier enviroment to integrate people but also a wrong perception of the same and is main cause for mental illness in the people.

I am also racist to some degree.
It's simply true that some groups are less capable (inherently less capable) then others.
Must this mean extermination or degregation or discrimination? Of course not. Still this differences have to be accepted. You won't help the Ghetto nignogs by creating highend academic jobs but by giving them well payed simple labour opportunities.

>Almost all republicans are to some degree racist (regardless of what they claim), take it from a dude who has spent a ton of time around people from both sides of the american political spectrum.

EVERYONE'S racist to some degree lmao

At this point to say:
Outsourcing simple labour is the main cause of Ghetto nignogs in the first place. (example detroit)
This is a side effect of globalism what is a policy of the liberal side. Those ghetto nignogs vote Left even the right (anti-globalism) actually benefits them more.

do you mean classical liberal or american liberal?
classical liberalism is pretty obvious because it values the free market and less regulation like australia
american liberal is wrong because they want regulation and increased taxes/welfare like France

i understand this, but unfortunately the large majority of republicans actively do not want the jobs they save to go to blacks. your ideology is completely correct in a country that isn't as fucked up as ours, but here both options are shitty for minorities, so why not go for the one where at least people dont hate them actively?

while i do understand the scientific basis behind the claim that some groups are less capable inherently than others, i disagree that there is significant evidence to show that this biological difference is significant enough to produce noticeable differences in a number of quantifications of societal success - and as a mathematician, i seen some of the ridiculous garbage that goes into all this statistical analysis and study to begin with - when societal factors are so much more pronounced and obvious causes of these differences.
I think that no matter which of these is true, things will be balanced out best not by pushing minorities into high-profile academic jobs but instead into well paid labor opportunities, as you said. Unfortunately, republicans only want these opportunities for whites, and certainly don't support the "well paid" bit.

Well, yeah. I mean like explicitly and unabashedly so. If I notice myself making judgements about anyone with regard to anything (unless im shitposting) i always try to take a step back and analyze the reason behind my judgements and possible alternative interpretations. That's why I get the beliefs of the german user (expressed above). But when people make no effort to do that in any aspect of their life, that's when i consider them biased. People who never stop to think "why am i disdainful of that guy just because he's black? is it him, or is it something else?" and grow a little bit from it are the stupid racists to which i'm referring. Not every republican is this way, but a large subset of them lack the self-awareness to even ask the question.

that's where the corrupt rich and powerful pedos live/work

>Why is it that always the most liberal places are the most successful ones in every part of the world? Why is it that they are rich as fuck?
You've got the causality all wrong. The success comes first. Usually because the place is either a port or an administrative center. This in turn attracts liberals and other parasites who can survive there because the succes allows them to. Then they start claiming the success as theirs even though it had nothing to do with them in the first place.

>american liberal is wrong because they want regulation and increased taxes/welfare like France
France supports the free market. France is rich. We are getting rid of socialist cancer.
And i shit on Australia.

Attached: 1518055012999.png (442x496, 416K)

>We are getting rid of socialist cancer.
Only to reinstitute it few years down the road.

>People in a city have way less deepened relations to other people. Social interaction stays in superficial level compared to rural population

What? You still are close to people you just do it on a smaller scale.

>both the 2011 general and presidential elections."

Lol the PAP will ALWAYS win. Singapore won't vote them out at all.

>fucking tchéquoslovaquia telling france "you are too communist"
good one
we have a saying here : "it's the camembert telling the roquefort that he stinks"

Good on you, France! The entire continent of Oz is indeed a backwater.
Not after they crown Macron.

Attached: France.jpg (750x500, 97K)

That's an extremely nasty paternalistic attitude you have there.

>"it's the camembert telling the roquefort that he stinks"
En Français svp

c'est le camembert qui dit au roquefort tu pues

There's a difference between not doing anything about it and trying to correct it or reign it in.

Consequence of wealth
Also a consequence of wealth

Most of the cities that are rich now have been rich historically, because they were important trading centres(mostly due to location - around a river or near the ocean). They were always a magnet for foreign traders and workers, so the inhabitants got used to different cultures and became more open minded.

100 years ago, the Democratic Party was the party of free trade, low tariffs and laissez-faire entrepreneurialism. They moved away from all of these things, but fiercely held on to the term "liberal" and avoided being labeled as "progressive".

What is incorrect about what I said?

but world top3 wealthy country are not liberal at all

Attached: 3292d8fc7484b8161351d38bb19aaf76.png (470x477, 28K)

the more education people have, the more they had the chance to be influenced by the leftist government (who determines the curriculum) and media

Good times breed weak men. Weak men bring hard times. We are at the beginning of said hard times.

Europe is going to have to stop mass migration or face a race war/ethic Euro extinction.

>Why is it that they are rich as fuck?

Who is they?
A few huge companies being based somewhere and a handful of super rich living in ivory towers and gated communities looking down on the poor masses is what you find in most of these places.
The poor mostly brown masses vote for benefits, they are who vote the progressives in.
You ironically find some of the highest levels of racial segregation and income inequity in these most "progressive" places.