What is Populism?

[Gloominary]

Ann Coulter is good at pointing out how feminism, migrants and minorities fuck us over, but not how banksters, vulture capitalists and white collar criminals fuck us over.
That's why I like Tucker Carlson, he's more of a proper populist, he points out how we're being fucked over by all sides.
It's the upperclass who're responsible for opening the floodgates and bringing them here, bureaucrats and businessmen enticing them with benefits, housing and jobs.

[Urwrongx1000]

watch this one Gloom

[promethean75]

Damn Johnny Cash just laid that shit down, diddint he, Ur?

[Urwrongx1000]

Some high-grade plutonium material there

[Urwrongx1000]

[promethean75]

No can do, bub. Coulter is where I draw the line. I'll take a lesbian feminist leftist who wears tennis shoes to work, if you got one. Got any Rachel maddow?

[Urwrongx1000]

I used to hate Coulter too, but I converted to the Center position. She's also been tamed in her older age now, and makes some good points nowadays.

I'm just going through these Frontline interviews. They're really good.

[Gloominary]

I like Ann Coulter, I like on her foreign policy, immigration and protectionism, I like her on free speech and guns.
She's an unhypocritical capitalist, like Rand Paul and unlike Trump, she opposes corporate bailouts, subsidies and welfare.
She wasn't afraid to support Trump when he was a fringe candidate, and she isn't afraid to criticize him since he's become president and betrayed his base.

So, what're you American conservatives going to do, now that you know Trump is another conman?

[Gloominary]

In fact I borrowed her book Adios America from the library.
She makes good points about the need to eliminate and reduce illegal and legal immigration respectively.

[Urwrongx1000]

Trump is de-establishing Washington, regardless of his personal motivations. You have to keep-in-mind, he's not a "politician", and he is moving on important decisions, such as killing the Iranian general, imposing tariffs on China, opening dialogue with Kim Jong, etc. He's not perfect, by any stretch.

I only hope that he's not the last of De-establishment. I fear once Trump is gone, that the US public may not get another chance anytime soon. The DNC has stuck their heads in the sand, and have not learned a damn thing. So I hope they are further disestablished. Republicans, at least, have the common sense to understand the power of these new messages and actions. The American populace is fed-up with partisan political bullshit, lies, and working against the interest of the American public.

[Gloominary]

In my view, the US has absolutely no right to meddle in Iranian affairs.
It has no right to sanction Iran, let alone arm terrorists, assassinate its people and invade.
Iran has every right to arm itself with nuclear weapons to deter its enemies from undermining its sovereignty, and it has many powerful enemies.
I want no part of the neolibcon, neofeudalist agenda.
My world is a multipolar world where every nation has the right to conduct its internal affairs how it sees fit, and where regional conflicts are solved regionally, not globally or by nations from the other side of the globe.
Of course my world doesn't and probably never will exist, but something like it ought to.

[Urwrongx1000]

My world is a multipolar world where every nation has the right to conduct its internal affairs how it sees fit,

I disagree, I don't want other nations to have nuclear arms. Smaller and weaker nations have less or nothing to use, and would inevitably use them.

It is the responsibility of Russia, NATO, and the USA to prevent this. Unfortunately, they all force USA into action, because they drag their feet.

So it leaves USA in the #1 spot, wasting lots of time and energy, military force, preventing such.

[Gloominary]

While Iran has less to lose than the US, it still has a ton to lose.
It's not like it's a little shithole country somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, where 98% of its citizens live in abject poverty and there's a coup every few years, countries that're that messed up don't have the resources to build and launch a nuke in the first place.
Iran has quite a sophisticated economy and society.
It's a 3000 year old civilization with a rich culture.

Also, the US is an empire, while making sure no country in West Asia has nuclear weapons besides Israel is probably one of its strategic objectives, that's no guarantee it won't invade you, install a puppet state and steal your resources.

[Gloominary]

[Urwrongx1000]

I believe the US cannot relinquish its hold on Middle Eastern oil, as a strategic resource, along with regulating Nuclear Arms worldwide. There's no point giving these matters up to foreigners and enemies. Why would the US do that? It would threaten the Economy, Military, and then directly, the US itself. Was 9-11 a result of blowback? Yes, but, the world has become Globalist. Nationalism is demonized. So you have a long, uphill battle, for Isolationism.



It seems that your positions are strongly aligned with Steve Bannon's populism and anti-elitism. However Bannon is a capitalist, which I presume you disagree with?

[Gloominary]

I believe the US cannot relinquish its hold on Middle Eastern oil, as a strategic resource, along with regulating Nuclear Arms worldwide. There's no point giving these matters up to foreigners and enemies. Why would the US do that? It would threaten the Economy, Military, and then directly, the US itself. Was 9-11 a result of blowback? Yes, but, the world has become Globalist. Nationalism is demonized. So you have a long, uphill battle, for Isolationism.

I'd never invade another country to keep the price of a commodity low, unless our economy would implode if we didn't and there were no peaceful alternatives.
I wouldn't spend trillions of our dollars, kill thousands of our young men, create conditions that would lead to the deaths of millions of foreign women and children, further destabilize the global economy, give terrorists more reason to hate us and risk WW3, I'd much rather spend those trillions on education, healthcare, housing and wages, invest in greener techs and in the meantime, pay a little more at the pump, assuming we're actually financially benefitting from these wars in any way at all.

It seems that your positions are strongly aligned with Steve Bannon's populism and anti-elitism. However Bannon is a capitalist, which I presume you disagree with?

If you put Tulsi Gabbard in charge of economic issues, Rand Paul in charge of social issues, both of them in charge of foreign policy and Jared Taylor in charge of immigration, you'd have something like my politics.

[Gloominary]

I'm a white nationalist, and either fiscally and socially libertarian, or fiscally center-left (social democracy) and socially center-right (moderate social conservatism), but I'm not fiscally far left (democratic socialism) and socially far right (radical social conservatism).
I'm not fiscally right (corporatism, state capitalism) and socially left (anti-gun, anti-white, anti-male).

I'm also in favor of more health, nature and less hedonism, materialism.

[Gloominary]

Here's a list of countries with nuclear weapons.

https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/972362/nuclear-weapons-arsenals.jpg

Some are liberal (whatever the word liberal even means these days) democracies, some are illiberal democracies and others are dictatorships.
Of those countries, which one has invaded another in recent memory?
Rightly or wrong, which one has nuked another country?
The answer to both those questions is the US.
The US supports totalitarian dictatorships like Saudi Arabia.
It overthrows liberal democracies like Iran in 1953.
The US supposedly went looking for terrorists and WMDs in Iraq.
They didn't find any, but they created conditions leading to millions of dead Iraqi men, women and children, and a power vacuum in which ISIS was born.
It went on to invade several other countries in the region.

The US, not Iran, is the biggest threat to international security.
Iran needs nukes to defend itself against the US.
I don't care that it's an Islamic state, anymore than I care that Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state, if Saudi Arabia did to Canada what the US did to Iran and the 3rd world in general, I'd be a fascist too.
The US is terrorizing, and radicalizing the region, it must stop.
We've got enough problems of our own with these liberal fascist quasidemocracies of ours.

[Gloominary]

I think every country's got to go its own way and figure things out for itself.
We're not the moral arbiters of the universe.

[Gloominary]

You can't bomb someone into democracy anyway.

[Gloominary]

For radical individualists, what many pit bulls (or insert any demographic here, class, culture, ethnicity, race, religion, sex) do or how their ancestors were reared, in the pit, has absolutely no implications for pit bulls as a whole.
They want us to treat each individual pit bull as a monad, with no relationship to its ancestors, their environment or other pit bulls.
They deny patterns within the breed, that all, most or at least a disproportionate minority of them are this, that they have inclinations to that.
Progressives on the other hand will acknowledge the patterns but excuse them, blame them on our discriminatory treatment of pit bulls, rather than on the pit bulls themselves.

In some cases, an entities characteristics can rightfully be attributed to how it's been individually reared, or to our preconceptions of it, or it could be an anomaly, a mutant, a one-off, but in all cases?
To take that as your default position?
Sure, every pit bull is an individual, but it's also part of a breed, it's more likely to exhibit this or that than other breeds.
If it exhibits hyper-aggression, we shouldn't be surprised, we should've been prepared.
Likewise, as individuals, and a society, we should expect certain things from certain demographics, and prepare for them.

Some take a step further, that an individual is born again anew each and every moment, with no past at all, not even one of their own, never mind their ancestors.
My past is just what happened to me, it's not me, they declare.
If they strike me, that tells me absolutely nothing about them, only my preconceptions, which's probably the only reason I was struck.
This is how parasitic individuals, and demographics, prey on naïve individuals and demographics.
Don't judge me by my ancestors past or my kind, don't even judge me by my past, I am pure potential, and good, we hope, and hope in the future, rather than insight into the past-present, is all we have.
This is not rationality, this is psychological warfare, and collective Stockholm syndrome, masquerading as its opposite.

[Gloominary]

For the individualists.

Discrimination makes sense.
Take gypsies for example.
Gypsies commit more blue collar crime than other population groups.

Progressives attribute this to white racism (the extrinsic, abhorrent behavior or limitations of minorities are wholly the result of the intrinsic, abhorrent behavior or limitations of the majority i.e. reverse discrimination) and/or their environment.
Individualists will write it off as statistical noise.
Real conservatives will attribute it to their biology and/or culture, their clannishness, deceitfulness, low iQs, poor impulse control and so on, attributes progressives will either try to deny and/or also attribute to white racism.

So which is it?
The thing is, lots of minorities experience racial discrimination.
Jews experience comparable levels of racism, yet they don't commit blue collar crime more than most pop groups, probably because of their high iQs, good impulse control and so on.
The Jews occupied the same ghettos gypsies occupy for centuries, yet when given an opportunity, the vast majority of Jews were able to rise out of the ghettos, whereas the vast majority of Gypsies aren't.
So you see, there must be something different about the biology and/or culture of the gypsy, which makes them more crime prone.

Now, just as we're more weary of say pit bulls than other races of dog (they've even been banned in some countries and regions of the world), because they're more likely to bite your head off than other dogs, we should be more weary of gypsies than other breeds of man, because they're more crime prone.
As individuals, and a society, we should be more weary of them.
Our criminal justice system, our policemen should be more weary of them.
If their rate of recidivism is significantly higher than other pop groups, which I'm sure it is, judges should focus more on punitive measures than rehabilitative, quarantining, segregating, when dealing with gypsies than when dealing with other pop groups.

We can use past group behavior to help us predict future group and individual behavior, and we should, and conversely, we can use past individual behavior to help us predict future group and individual behavior.
It doesn't have to be all, or even most members of a pop group.
Even if it's just a disproportionate minority of them, it may be reason enough to take action against them, penalizing, restricting, segregating, surveilling or deporting and replacing them with more of our own, and/or with minorities we can better trust.

Groups are also culpable for individual behavior, and vice versa.
Take Islamic terror for example.
Muslims are more prone to commit terror than other pop groups.
If a Muslim commits terror, and we find that his mosque was preaching hatred of whites, and other minorities, the mosque bears responsibility (perhaps not as much, but still some) for what he did.
Even the members of the mosque who weren't preaching hate are somewhat responsible, if they didn't take a stand against and report it.

Open the Koran, in it you will find passage after passage supporting conversion of the heathen and infidels by the sword.
So Islam itself bears responsibility.
So what should be done with such mosques and Islam itself?
I'm not sure, but it's perfectly rational to discriminate against them.
Personally, I'd probably make things very uncomfortable for them, so most would pack up their things and head back home.
I'd do the same with Jews; by and large, they're backbiting/stabbing, ungrateful traitors.

People are selfish, some more than others of course.
Selfishness is not bad, in fact it's good, if beings weren't selfish, they'd be overtaken by the elements or other, lesser beings.
I see my biological and cultural kin partly as extensions of myself, and so care about, and would rather be around them than outgroups, and I find some outgroups more compatible with my ingroup than others.
It doesn't mean I don't care about others, but I prioritize, I rank.
Just because I'm loyal to family and friends doesn't mean I go around harming everyone else.
Barring desperation, everyone's entitled to their land, just as we are entitled to ours.
And so, it makes perfect sense to want more rights for my ingroup than for outgroups on our soil.

Positive rights are just as important as negative rights.
And collective rights are just as important as individual rights.
This idea that collective positive rights are irrational, is in fact irrational.
We may have our preferences, we may emphasize one over the other, but there's two sides to this coin, every part is part of a whole, and every whole has parts, metaphysically and sociologically, the part does not take precedence over the whole, and what I have, like a roof over my head, or some food in my belly, isn't less important to me than my freedom.
They're both important, and where they conflict, there needs to be compromise.

[Urwrongx1000]

I think every country's got to go its own way and figure things out for itself.
We're not the moral arbiters of the universe.

Globalism was the end-result of WWII and then the Cold War, after the Soviet Union collapse.
Somebody needs to be #1 and hold the World Championship title. Here's the crux:
Would you rather it be us or them? USA does a decent job, even a good job, even a great job.
Who could possibly do better? Russia? China--who is isolationist, xenophobic, and introverted??

Who even has the power?

It's best that US direct world hegemony, until a 'better' moral and military authority comes along. You can wax-and-wane "international sovereignty", but, fact of the matter is, most smaller and weaker nations would fuck the world up ten times worse, probably start nuclear wars, if they ever came close to Globalist power. That's what many isolationists and nationalists miss.

Somebody needs to be king; therefore better us than them.

[Gloominary]

I think every country's got to go its own way and figure things out for itself.
We're not the moral arbiters of the universe.

Globalism was the end-result of WWII and then the Cold War, after the Soviet Union collapse.
Somebody needs to be #1 and hold the World Championship title. Here's the crux:
Would you rather it be us or them? USA does a decent job, even a good job, even a great job.
Who could possibly do better? Russia? China--who is isolationist, xenophobic, and introverted??

Who even has the power?

It's best that US direct world hegemony, until a 'better' moral and military authority comes along. You can wax-and-wane "international sovereignty", but, fact of the matter is, most smaller and weaker nations would fuck the world up ten times worse, probably start nuclear wars, if they ever came close to Globalist power. That's what many isolationists and nationalists miss.

Somebody needs to be king; therefore better us than them.

I'm not a total isolationist.
Like I said, I think regional conflicts, like say if Uruguay invades Paraguay, can be solved regionally, meaning Argentina or Brazil can intervene, whereas global conflicts, like say if China invades Paraguay, can be solved globally, meaning America and its allies (other white nations) can intervene.
If the US and its allies adopted this strategy, we could save trillions of dollars, millions of lives and still prevent other nations from overstepping their boundaries.
But barring an invasion or overt, serious threats, I don't see grounds for invasion.

If the US only defended itself and its allies from attacks and indisputable threats of attack, or alternatively, if it only invaded countries that didn't abide by international law and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, then perhaps it could be a force for good in this world, but instead it'll invade you whether you abide by them or not (which itself is a violation of international law), whether you're a dictatorship or not, so countries like Iran and North Korea have no reason to abide by them.