Can people explain to me (without resorting to straw mans, slippery slopes, whataboutisms, false dichotomys or ad hominems) what is wrong with wanting and advocating:* A living wage for 40 hours of work* Protecting your nature/wildlife/climate against pollution and carbon emissions* Food that is healthy and not grown with chemicals that cause cancer/parkinsons etc. * That there is something wrong with the system when 1 person has more wealth than the bottom 3 billion people combined.
Worth preserving
>>538570798Nothing. Goyslop especially needs to be killed.In general people think only in terms of sides rather than issues.
>>538570798It really is time for the 4th Reich
>>538570798because the wealthy people can't stay wealthy if these are all true
>>538571146Who holds the power? There are millions of us and only a few at the top. Why are we accepting the decadent lifestyle of a few.
>>538570798It’s usually not the what but the how
>>538571269because our lifes are too comfortablegenerally speaking, revolts only happen because people starve
>>538571489Revolts are organized by counter elites. Think of them as frustrated millionaires that find their own glass ceiling. They want to be on top.The only case i know of a spontaneous slave revolt might be the spartacus uprising, not sure as theres not enough information about him.
>>538570798Women voted for the world you have, now you have no rights to change anything because they voted your rights away so they could have two and you have none.
>>538571746>without resorting to straw mans, slippery slopes, whataboutisms, false dichotomys or ad hominemsfix your shit nigger
>>538571836Slippery slope is just a fancy way of saying A leads to B. You just get mad because people pick a scapegoat. The slope is slippery by default, you either do things to prevent it or increase it.
We can point to woman's suffrage as a major turning point in history and many of all liberalisms can be linked to suffrage being the beginning. Hence, womens right slipped into gay rights which slipped into gay marriage and immigrant replacement. Without women voting based on immediate feelings in the very moment, things would be drastically different.
>>538570798The nature preservation shit is full of lies and distortions that suck up well meaning funds.First off, you can't control the weather with limiting cow farts and hot showers.Secondly, Barbosa and Leal overunity exists and is being used. It's dirt cheap stationary overunity. No rare metals at all. Non-radioactive either. Super viable. Just needs a connection to earth.Maybe quartz for frequency timing.Greenies are mentally stunted and keep repeating "wind, solar" like it's the secret to utopia or w/e.
>>538572424>First off, you can't control the weather with limiting cow farts and hot showers.You actually can. Cow farts produce methane which is a greenhouse gas>Secondly, Barbosa and Leal overunity exists and is being used. It's dirt cheap stationary overunity. No rare metals at all. Non-radioactive either. Super viable. Just needs a connection to earth.This is bullshit, it has never been proven. >Greenies are mentally stunted and keep repeating "wind, solar" like it's the secret to utopia or w/e.Have you ever been to India? They don't care about emissions and their air is polluted to the point it gives you asthma. Maybe clean energy isnt so bad?
>>538570798A "whataboutism" isnt a logical fallacy. Your premises are unrelated to eachother because you're focusing on the hyperreal; the narrative you've created based on the media you've been in contact with. The problems you are trying to solve are existential, things humans have a poor grasp of in general, and are highly politicized to radicalize you into a particular ideological perspective. To address all those problems simultaneously is overwhelming, and frankly, semantics. Why do humans work? What is a wage? How do you determine what is or is not livable, based on that criteria? These are complex questions with incredibly unsatisfactory answers. 40 hours a week is extremely arbitrary, for example. After 40 hours you dont magically solve all the worlds problems. You dont unlock a new layer of productivity. You dont accomplish more or lead a higher quality of life. It is simply a number decided by humans in ownership or management postions to justify keeping people at a task for a designated amount of time. Progress is equally arbitrary relative to the where and the why.Every single one of your points is a statement like this, and it isnt me abdicating responsibility, it's saying that you have failed to diagnose the problems accurately, then applied an ideological filter to what you percieve as areas for improvement, which is nice, but I want a mech fighting arena and a lion with wings; without the how it's pointless to demand.
>>538570798The only one of these that even sort of has issues is the environment ones. Not because it's wrong. Just that it has to be done carefully and with an enforcement mechanism against other countries or you just end up fucking yourself and the polluters out compete you and take over anyway. But we could start with things like focusing on cleaning up non-fossil fuel pollution and investing in hydro and nuclear that have minimal downsides while we figure out how we can enforce the fossil fuel stuff on a global scale.
>>538572953Funny, the moment you got real answers you vanished without a trace. Odd how that works.
>>538570798Sure, the problem is that faggots and corrupt retards people like you vote for try to add retarded faggot shit along those policies Right wing fags do the same, but i like their cons more than left wing cons (which you probably consider pros)
>>538570798>* A living wage for 40 hours of workyou already have that since you're alive and posting here >* That there is something wrong with the system when 1 person has more wealth than the bottom 3 billion people combined.commies like you get pic related I can agree on your other points though some nature is worth protecting and food should be healthy
>>538570798/pol/ likes capitalism *because* of the pain and gore involved, not despite of it.
>>538570798A prole having an opinion about what the government should do is like having an opinion on what the weather should be like tomorrow.
>>538574612If that was true, communism would be super popular, considering Pol Pot and The Gulags and whatnot. Both painful and gorey.It's shilled. Some shilling is burried so deep the shills arent even aware they're shilling.
>>538570798Nothing at all. We're going to do all that and more. The point will not be to make America or the west the "most competitive" marketplace, it will be to provide a comfy and durable mode of living. The goal will be to maximize human happiness, not corporate balance sheets.
>>538570798the earth is ruled by the annunakino chance were getting any of thatstop dreaming already would ya
>>538573138>A "whataboutism" isnt a logical fallacy.Never said that a whataboutism is a logical fallacy. Hard thing right, comprehensive reading.>Your premises are unrelated to eachother because you're focusing on the hyperreal; the narrative you've created based on the media you've been in contact with. The problems you are trying to solve are existential, things humans have a poor grasp of in general, and are highly politicized to radicalize you into a particular ideological perspective. To address all those problems simultaneously is overwhelming, and frankly, semantics.Problems created by humans can be solved by humans. This has nothing to do with semantics or ideology etc. I was simply asking why some people would oppose the conservation of nature, oppose living wage and extreme wealth inequality.>Why do humans work? What is a wage? How do you determine what is or is not livable, based on that criteria? These are complex questions with incredibly unsatis(...)ss is equally arbitrary relative to the where and the why.You are using a lot of words to say nothing. Stop being a pretentious basement dwelling 'philospher' and answer the question.>Every single one of your points is a statement like this, and it isnt me abdicating responsibility, it's saying that you have failed to diagnose the problems accurately, then applied an ideological filter to what you percieve as areas for improvement, which is nice, but I want a mech fighting arena and a lion with wings; without the how it's pointless to demand.I merely stated questions, I didn't add an ideological layer. You are the one going mad and ape shit crazy.
>>538574466I'm not a communist though. Also:>false dichotomys is a no noYou can be against extreme wealth inequality and not a communist.>>538574802Then why is your government doing everything in it's power to make things worth for the planet and the common people?
>>538575972Neat, you are here.You asked what's wrong with wanting that stuff. I explained how, in a post-structural decentralized context, the nature of your desires was fundamentally incongruent with the outcomes you actually want because you have no plan, and misdiagnosed the problem, then applied the narrow solutions to problems you were sold. You did add an ideological layer. You anthropocenterized the goddamned weather and temperature of the planet, then insinuiated that opposition to your position had never been provided without being a logical fallacy. Followed by saying you never said a whataboutism is a logical fallacy, despite nesting it brackets as exclusionary criteria along with real logical fallacies.This statement and paragraph is complete and unsubstantial to the actual argument at hand, and mostly insulting you with red pen while summarizing my argument.Now instead of lecturing you in a subject you do not have expertise in, to address your actual question, humans cannot solve all problems created by humans. Can you fix my car and heal my ACL while solving the post modern break? Of course not, and even if you could, you arent close enough to me to be useful. Humanity may be able to solve some problems posed by humanity, but the nature of subjectivity and intersubjectivity is that an individual perspective is fundamentally limited by their mortality and temporality. To paraphrase directly so you can understand, people in the future should know more than people in the past, based on the nature of archival, and the problems caused by the solutions of today are unknown as things evolve over time. The problems you suggested and the implicit bias you presented demonstrate that you do not have the capacity to solve those problems yourself. Therefore, you have faith in other people doing it for you. And since you have faith, you have belief in the absence of a solution; my exact critique.
>>538570798>* A living wage for 40 hours of workNothing wrong with wanting these things. Trump is not only working on this for the US but it'll effect the whole world. You'll be making more than just a living wage after all the banks are eliminated, and we all have gold/silver backed inflation-free currencies again.>* Protecting your nature/wildlife/climate against pollution and carbon emissionsCo2 isn't bad. Greenhouses use it for better crops. More would makes planet greener (with more oxygen - our current oxygen levels are low). Look up The Carbon Cycle.>* Food that is healthy and not grown with chemicals that cause cancer/parkinsons etc.Trump has RFK jr on this. Parkinsons is caused by cholesterol deficiency and oxidation of fats in the brain. Reversible. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvDlJIphrI>* That there is something wrong with the system when 1 person has more wealth than the bottom 3 billion people combined.If it's through crime. But if someone is super rich because of a great idea or company (Steve Jobs for example), why should he be penalized? It's people freely buying his products that made him rich. People don't have a right to someone else's money because they made more.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c
>>538570798>Let's debate like gentlemensOK. I will take the bait.(1)Describe a "living wage" ... is that (A) enough to live on OR(B) enough to live on, plus the slow acquisition of capital(C) enough to live on, and buy a house, and have a car, and go on one month vacations, etc etc etc(2)please point me to CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of climate change modelsnot some bullshit written by a "journalist" .... an actual peer reviewed, scientific study, that CONCLUSIVELY establishes a link between human carbon emmisions and a warming planet(3) There is nothing wrong with advocating for clean food and water, the question is "at what price", and we can debate that point too.(4) Answer me one question first: "Would you rather be born today in USA, or born 200 years ago as the King of England?"remember ..... NO straw mans, slippery slopes, whataboutisms, false dichotomys or ad hominems .... just honest good faith discussion and answers.you can choose any one, or combination of points to begin our discussion.
>>538570798Seethe and cope toothpaste. Your entire country can't match the gdp of 1 state.
>>538577321Lol imagine being such an uppity retard saying this much bullshit and somehow thinking you are intelligent. Maybe answer the questions to begin with, but you haven't. What you did do is write down a whole lot of fancy sounding post modern words saying nothing. Fix your shit nigger.Pic related: its you.
>>538570798>carbon emissions why? are you trying to keep the air free of pollutants, or do you think carbon dioxide is le evil gas? if you’re filtering toxins and particulates then you’re responsible and this is what everyone wants. if you’re trying to not produce carbon dioxide then you should kys, because that’s what you exhale. nobody wants pollution, nobody wants to be scammed by the system, and nobody wants foreigners coming into their society and being given advantages and opportunities to compete. it’s shrimple, gas the kikes and everything downstream will sort itself out
>>538578350(1)I guess a living wage is somewhat arbitrary but a salary that pays your utilities, rent, food etc. and leaving after expensives enough room to buy some things for hobbies, clothes, savings etc. Not living paycheck to paycheck, not having to work 2-3 jobs.(2)https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00965-9?https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301247690_Consensus_on_Consensus_A_Synthesis_of_Consensus_Estimates_on_Human-Caused_Global_Warming(4) I'm not answering that question because that has nothing to do with my original question or topic.
>>538578350200 years ago as the kang of bongland, but i would settle for a duke or any other man of high standing
>>538573138>A "whataboutism" isnt a logical fallacy.Yes it is.Tu quoque or non sequiturOne is informal one ia formal
>>538578973Is that the best you can do? You didnt address anything I said or bring up anything new. Seems like the issue is you, and if you are the issue, maybe that's what should be addressed before you come to a conclusion.Anyways, you've been conclusively proven wrong, did not refute anything I said, and engaged in the behaviour you bitched about. This thread is complete; you are now just begging for attention.
>>538570798>slippery slope>logical fallacyRope yourself, faggot.
>>538570798Such a society cannot exist because human greed and avarice will always exist. Those who lead and restrain themselves are outliers.
>>538579926Oh, that's what it is? I thought it was something between ad absurdum and non sequitir, but mostly making a comparison.
>>538580139You are doing exactly the thing I asked people not to do: moving the discussion away from the actual points.I never said I can solve every problem on earth. I never presented a full blueprint for society. I asked what is wrong with wanting these things. There is a big differance between having a moral goal and having every technical detail already figured out.Saying "you dont know exactly how to solve it, therefore your demand is pointless" is a pretty weak argument. Nobody starts with a perfect solution. First people recognize a problem, then they discuss possible solutions.Your argument about 40 hours being arbitrary is also not really answering the question. Yes, it is a human made number. So are money, laws, property rights and governments. The fact that something is created by humans doesnt mean it cannot be questioned or improved.Also, calling my points "hyperreal" or saying I am just influenced by some media narrative is not an argument. You are assuming things about my thinking instead of adressing the actual claims. If you disagree with climate protection, living wages, reducing pollution or extreme wealth inequality, then explain why. Dont just say "the problem is complex".Complexity is not a excuse to avoid talking about if something is good or bad.And the "you have faith in other people solving it" argument makes no sense. Expecting humans to improve things based on history and evidence is not faith. That is litteraly how progress happened.You are asking for a perfect solution before allowing someone to say there is a problem. With that logic almost every improvement in human history would never have happend.Also, using a lot of big words like "post-structural", "hyperreal" and "intersubjectivity" does not automatically make the argument stronger. Sometimes it just makes a simple point look more complicated than it is.Again: FIX YOUR SHIT NIGGER
>>538570798Okay let's try this. I have a child's thesaurus and it's set to three letter words. > A living wage for 40 hours of workI don't hate this. But Minimum wage is the worst way to achieve it. Having a high trust homogenous society where everyone is treated as a member instead of a imported or bribed vote is how you get this. You want high wages? Make getting work easy, and how do we make getting work easy? Make sure there are lots of jobs. And how do we make sure there are lots of jobs? Less Rules and Laws not more. Minimum wage is the stupidest, IF THE JOB ISN'T WORTH THE MONEY STOP WORKING IT . * Protecting your nature/wildlife/climate against pollution and carbon emissionsThis is fine, but like all things Moderation. We need industry, they make jobs. Wealth if you want it for everyone Has to come from somewhere. We can respect nature without pretending that every blade of grass is the same as a human life. A fine balance if you will. * Food that is healthy and not grown with chemicals that cause cancer/parkinsons etc.Yeah, this is great. You want that? Break up factory farms? You want that. You need a High Trust High Investment Society that honors its Small Farmers. * That there is something wrong with the system when 1 person has more wealth than the bottom 3 billion people combined.Now you're just a Dumb Nigger. You see. Its not one man having a lot of money that made those bottom 3 billion people poor. Its them being 75IQ Niggers (like you) that did it, and your entire line arguemetn for all your arguements is >ME AM POOR NIGGER>THEY AM LIKE ME>POOR NIGGERSElon is singlehandedly (or close enough) revolutionizing space and transport. That African deserves his money, he made it fair. People gave it to him willingly. Don't like him? Don't buy his shit. Simple As.
>>538570798>* A living wage for 40 hours of work>* Protecting your nature/wildlife/climate against pollution and carbon emissions>* Food that is healthy and not grown with chemicals that cause cancer/parkinsons etc.>* That there is something wrong with the system when 1 person has more wealth than the bottom 3 billion people combined.Well for starters its far right nazi talking points my guy
>>538580693The problem with this argument is that it ignores the actual history of western capitalism.The original industrial societies were exactly the situation you describe: lots of workers, few protections, little regulation and many available jobss. The result was not high wages. The result was poverty wages, child labour, dangerous workplaces and workers having almost no power to negotiate.The idea that "if the job isn't worth the money, stop working it" only works if the worker actually has a realistic choice. A poor worker with a family cannot simply stop working and wait for a better job when the alternative is hunger or homelessness. The employer usually has more power because there are many workers competing for the same jobs.This is why labour movements, unions and minimum wage laws appeared in the first place. They were responses to a situation where employers could compete with each other by pushing wages down instead of improving conditions.Also, saying "less rules and laws" ignores that many of the protections people now see as normal were created because the unregulated system failed: workplace safety, child labour laws, working hour limits and wage protections.
>>538570947Tel me why dutch are not able to create companies that are profitable enough to make high wagesAnd which dutch billionaire are you talking about or are you american on vpn
>protecting nature against carbon emissions PPM Extinction Threshold is 200 I.E. we an exceed it and live but if it drops then plants/trees can't photosynthesize and EVERYTHING DIES OFF
>>538570798S-shut up anti-semite
>>538570798>expected to work>not guaranteed workit seems like this anomaly only exists in order to scare the workers so that when they inevitably see the homeless - which is a "natural" (it's actually by design) byproduct of Capitalism - they'll want to work harder and for less pay so that they won't end up like that.GREAT system everyone!
>>538580579That's nice. Are you going to address any of my points? You are just saying no. I presented an argument, can you restate the thesis and supporting points? I have already answered a lot of your complaints, like the direction of progress, and the fact that blindly progressing towards something you want but do not understand is what you're doing. You, personally, feel strongly about these opinions. And you, personally, do not have an adequate understanding to solve the problem you presented. It's faith BECAUSE you do not understand the solutions to the problems, you believe someone else can. You believe in that person, the structure that produces that person, and the conditions that create that person without knowing anything at all about what's needed. You can make something up and feel really strongly about it, but it's hopeful and faith at the end of the day because you do not have the specific answers, you dont know where to find them, and are repeating an opinion that was told to you. You have faith in the opinions of someone else to the extent you do not know the opposing information.Hyperreal is a very specific word with very specific meaning that you seem unfamiliar with, I suggest you look it up instead of throwing a fit and complaining that you dont like words I use that you're pretending to understand. Maybe you should have asked me what the correct questions were, and maybe I had a good answer that almost agreed with some of what you were saying, but I had FAITH in your capabilities before I had evdience of them, then calibrated. You know, a continuous improvement model.
>>538579473>>538579473>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00965-9?this doesnt prove it all, in fact it begins with an assumption, and is hidden behind a paywall.>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301247690_Consensus_on_Consensus_A_Synthesis_of_Consensus_Estimates_on_Human-Caused_Global_WarmingConsensus is not fact, in fact this article states that in the first paragraph. More over TOl is right, and is askin EXACTLY what Im asking, "At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement"So this paper that you have cited .... IN ITS FIRST PARAGRAPH ... ADMITS THAT THEY ARE LYING!!!! They have drawn a conclusion from a set of papers, in which the authors of those actual paper have not drawn that conclusion!! they have literally taken another persons work, and drawn a conclusion, that the person did not make .... and then have the gall to call that "consensus".but consensus doesnt matter anyway. At one point in human history, the "scientific" consensus was that the Earth was flat ... and one man said "No, its actually a sphere" ... they burned him at the stake as a heretic!!! one man alone was right .... and the WHOLE WORLD was wrong.So I dont care about "consensus". Im not "going along to get along" ... this is SCIENCE ... PROVE IT, MATHEMATICALLY .... otherwise its just an opinion. and dont get me wrong, you can have an opinion, but you cannot state your opinions as FACTS.
>>538570798Until the human right to white identity is accepted, I simply have no interest in debating the particulars of a given political policy with anyone not of my people, or who has no loyalty to my people.
>>538570798>* A living wage for 40 hours of workWe have that>* Protecting your nature/wildlife/climate against pollution and carbon emissionsWe do that.>* Food that is healthy and not grown with chemicals that cause cancer/parkinsons etc.We do that too>* That there is something wrong with the system when 1 person has more wealth than the bottom 3 billion people combined.Did the bottom 3 billion make an electric car company and a space company? No? Fuck off with your envy ridden gibs me dat faggotry.
>A living wage for 40 hours of workThis is a meaningless term. Are you 17 living at home and want some spending money while being able to put money aside to eventually put a down payment on a modest home within your means ... or are you 35 and expect an unskilled position previously reserved for teenagers and those just entering the workforce to afford you a $12000/mo apartment in midtown Manhattan? There's nothing wrong with wanting to afford certain things but you must have something marketable worthy of the pay you need to achieve that. My first job as a teenager was as a stock boy in a supermarket. The thought never even occurred to me that I would be able to move out on my own and live off that job. Today people think they should be making $27/hr to stack cans on a shelf.>Protecting your nature/wildlife/climate against pollution and carbon emissionsA noble cause. Most normal people would prefer a clean environment. The problem arises on how to achieve that. The current system is to just tax you more while not actually doing anything. Polluters will simply pay the tax and continue polluting, or move production overseas where it's cheaper to pollute. We *can't* get rid of fossil fuels because the entire system relies on it. Reasonable regulations are fine, overly restrictive ones just chase industry out of your country. There is no viable alternative, so until something better comes along that's what we're stuck with. >Food that is healthy and not grown with chemicals that cause cancer/parkinsons etc.This is achievable if politicians are held accountable for accepting bribes from the corporations adding the poisons to our food. Until then, nothing will change. >That there is something wrong with the system when 1 person has more wealth than the bottom 3 billion people combinedThere's nothing wrong with billionaires existing, it all depends on how they became billionaires. Did they create a successful business people use or run a drug cartel?
>>538579473>(4) I'm not answering that question because that has nothing to do with my original question or topic.>>538579637Its actually a really important question, because it delves directly into the heart of the question "What is wealth?"200 years ago, the most powerful man in the world, had lice in his hair, in his bedding! He died of a preventable disease, because the "physicians" of his age believed in "bleeding". Today we have antibiotics, toilet paper, smartphones. I mean if you showed the King of England a smartphone 200 years ago, you be exorcised as a devil, he'd think it was some kind of crystal ball. the average Nepali man today has access to technology and medicine, that the King of England couldnt have dreamed off 200 years ago! thats real wealth.and that wealth was provided for, by an experiment ... in real actual capitalism, the first time capitalism was ever really tried ... started in england, and then spread America, and the Americans ran with it like a wildfire .... and it caused an unprecendented EXPLOSION of real wealth, the likes of which the world had never seen before, and its still going. the powers that be, the kings, they want to snuff out capitalism ... because it has made them irrelevant. So the answer to that question, belies the underlying problem. Do you want POWER ... then you choose to be King. Do you want WEALTH ... then you choose to be ordinary citizen today.because real wealth, it isnt numbers in a bank account ... its access to stuff, like computers, smartphones, medicines, antibiotics.
>>538570798Fuck you, tranny. You lost!
>>538581109>The result was not high wages. The result was poverty wages, child labour, dangerous workplaces and workers having almost no power to negotiate.No dude .... thats where it started from. Child labour and poverty didnt begin in 1700. there wasnt a single CAPITALIST economy on the planet before 1600. Its was monarchies. There was very little democracy anywhere.capitalism didnt invent child labour .... poverty wages and dangerous workplaces .... you think these didnt exist in the past! capitalism didnt start any of that. capitalism is what has been liftin humans out of that. you think being a medieval serf was "fun". you think living as a roman slave was "wealthy" .... they are the opposite of it. Your professors have lied to you man. they are part of the government entrenched class that extracts wealth from the working class ... of course they dont want you to believe in capitalism, capitalism would force them to produce something of value to society. when he told you "capitalism caused child labour" ... didnt you even for a moment say "hey wait a minute, child labour existed for 3000 years BEFORE capitalism". It was capitalism that ENDED child labour, slavery, indentured servitude, dangerous workplaces, everywhere that capitalism goes it increasesthe REAL wealth of people and gives them direct control over thier money (the product of thier labour)
>>538570798>please accept the unfounded assumption that these promises are all I want and not wedge issues Kys
You are creating a power bubble that can be arbitraged. So you are volunteering to give away political power in exchange for a life. You are the biggest threat to the power of the elites as a living human, so by giving away power, the one thing they will never give you is a life. What you should be doing is advocating against corruption and match fixing in the blind, and then the scraps would go to families.
>>538570798>* A living wage for 40 hours of workWe should be able to live off of 30 hours or maybe less. The 40 hour work week was proposed during the industrial revolution our productivity is much higher now.
>>538583933>>538583181>>538582422Also neat.I disagree philosophically on some things, but I definitely appreciate your effort and ethusiasm. You a cool guy anon.
>>538570798Nah you're right
>>538570798>A living wage for 40 hours of workBrown people are depreciating my wages. Remove them and I'll make more money.>Protecting your nature/wildlife/climate against pollution and carbon emissionsRight wing hunters contribute more to environmental protection causes than any other demographic. If you want to really reduce polution, reduce the global brown population, which contributes a thousand times the pollution and habitat destruction compared to whites.>Food that is healthy and not grown with chemicals that cause cancer/parkinsons etc.Growing your own food is a right wing issue.>That there is something wrong with the system when 1 person has more wealth than the bottom 3 billion people combined.I do not care that there are rich people, I care that the preponderance of rich people take actions that set them against my people. If there was a quadrillionaire neutral or supportive towards my people I wouldn't want him to lose his resources because the myriad economic interactions he'd be having would be a benefit to my people. If my friend was a trillionaire that would be good. If my enemy has ten dollars that's too much.
>>538570997>In general people think only in terms of sides rather than issues.Because anyone who's anti white will say literally anything, on any issue, at any time, and take your money and support to channel it towards their true agenda. Judge people and groups based on the patterns of their behavior, never, ever, on their words.
>>538570798Debate on what? We're all on the same page here m8
>>538571743You're not living through an 1800s revolution you're living through the second bronze age collapse.
>>538571836The concept of the Slippery Slope "fallacy" would literally not allow someone to describe the danger of a physical, actual slippery slope someone was inching towards.The fact that you've banned even discussing the idea that one political position can be, intentionally or incidentally, a progressive stepping stone to another, suggests you have no serious thoughts and do not desire a serious conversation.
>>538572953>Have you ever been to India? They don't care about emissions and their air is polluted to the point it gives you asthmaSounds like if you want to save the environment there's absolutely no step you could take besides annihilating the population of india and china that would matter.>Maybe clean energy isnt so bad?Hugs are nice but I'm not voting for you and giving you my money just because you call yourself the "pro hug party". Only patterns of behavior matter.
>>538570798The Atheist Jews were the architects of Communism in the 1920s. A group at the Frankfurt School developed Critical Theory to convert the West to Communism. The Frankfurt School plan was to undermine the Christian legacy. They called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life to de-stabilize society and destroy what they saw as the 'oppressive' order.They hoped their policies would spread like a virus; continuing the work of the Western Marxists: 1 The creation of racism offences 2 Continual change to create confusion 3 The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children 4 The undermining of schools' and teachers' authority 5 Huge immigration to destroy identity 6 The promotion of excessive drinking 7 Emptying of churches 8 An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime 9 Creating dependency on the state or state benefits 10 Control and dumbing down of media 11 Encouraging the breakdown of the familyOne of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud's idea of 'pansexualism' - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls• abolish all forms of male dominance• declare women to be an 'oppressed class' and men oppressorsFollowing Hitler's rise to power in 1933, the Institute moved to NY City where it became affiliated with Columbia University.http://archive.is/qn0gWhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/JJyRf3HrK9QS/https://archive.is/HhfQBhttps://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/15545-gramscis-grand-planNSFW Documentary: Berlin - Sin City of the 1920's. https://www.bitchute.com/video/h4eI5NafulIN/
>>538570798There is a genghis khan thread up, with some quote about the greatest pleasure being had after raping a woman after killing her husband and their village. Those people are at the top, and scattered about the periphery. I could imagine someone having the wherewithal to break through the initial ranks. Do you want to maintain it?
>>538570798>Protecting your nature/wildlife/climate against pollution and carbon emissionsYou're a faggot and globalism environmentalism leftists usually sway, bait, hook and reel in puppets like you on this one issue. Once you become a zealot, they'll brainwash you into forgetting the other points in your post
