I am seeing headlines about the Brazilian election referring to the winner as a far right "populist". I then recalled they said trump was a populist and they say a lot of right wing people are populist. They say it in a derogatory manner. So I looked it up. Populist: "a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people."
How is that a bad thing?
Because it's an anti-elitist and anti-establishment position, as such the elite establishment media hates it.
because people don't google words they don't know LMAO
If you're asking about the morality, it's typically meant in a political manner representing a majority.
So the majority forces dictates on a minority.
Referred to as "tyranny of the majority".
>far-left populist
ever heard that?
Don't you know? Your primary issues in voting should be things that matter to almost no one, like gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, and stopping racist microaggressions, you bigot.
It's literally just making a slur out of "what the people want"
which is preferable to tyranny of the Jew
I tell everyone, if Brazil had a Swiss-like direct democracy, the right-wing would win on 90% of the issues, certainly on anything related to public security, immigration, abortion, and even economics (who'd directly vote for more taxes, really). The left only ever won anything because it had the backing of 90% of intellectuals, artists, and journalists.
It's not preferable to decentralization, which minimizes all kinds of tyranny by leashing scope and making people proximal to causes.
Shut your fucking racist mouth, you bigot! Fucking nazi!
Good thread.
Next time you watch CNN it whatever andb these so called intellectual priest class are sneering at trump you will know they are really talking about the ordinary man.
The caste and feudal systems of European age is still alive and well. Just hidden
Ah yes, the ol' divide and conquer strategy. Nothing could go wrong
Lichtenstein does pretty well.
You don't want to be in a political union with people you hate - admit it. You do not want them having any say over your life at all. The solution is to be apart from them - that's the OPPOSITE of multiculturalism.
>Lichtenstein
>Population of a small town
What did he mean by this?
You are correct, however. I have no desire to share a country with people who do not have European Christian heritage. The reason for this is simple. Their values and interests will never align with mine, and therefore they will always push for policies that are not in my best interests. You would actually have to be kind of insane to actively want people in your country who will push for changes against your own interests.
You can decentralize to Lichtenstein size. Or bigger. Or smaller. Whatever pleases you.
So you ought to push secession. Be with the people you want to be with, and without the people you don't want to be with. There is no divine law of nature that you all have to be under one big political union. Political boundaries are arbitrary and a matter of choice - draw them where you will. They get redrawn all the damn time, all around the world.
>Oy vey you should give up parts of your country, infrastructure and resources to third worlders who have done nothing to earn it and have no heritage in this country
Or I could, you know, not.
You have no stake in some place hundreds of miles away from you.
Your stake is with the people you love around you and whom you interact with and care about.
Try it from another perspective - why would a rural conservative man from Kentucky mourn the secession of California? What would he ACTUALLY lose, besides a massive hostile population that somehow gets to vote on what happens to him hundreds of miles away in rural Kentucky?
If you can tell me what he loses - and if it's anything serious - I'll cede the argument to you entirely.
>You have no stake in some place hundreds of miles away from you.
Wrong. I have friends and family members from coast to coast, and I benefit from natural resources from all over the country which my ancestors fought to secure. Moreover, the more divided we become, the weaker we are collectively. That's literally the divide and conquer strategy which leaves each individual state exponentially more vulnerable, and more prone to conflict with one another.
>Your stake is with the people you love around you and whom you interact with and care about.
National interests are not defined by some arbitrary geographical proximity
>Wrong. I have friends and family members from coast to coast
Seems like relocating rather than being in a political union with people you think want to dominate and murder you would be a better deal.
>and I benefit from natural resources from all over the country
You benefit from the natural resources of every nation on earth, because they all trade their shit to you.
If California weren't in the U.S., none of their shit would be inaccessible to anyone else - you could still go there, buy there, sell there, import from there, export to there. Literally nothing about "resources" changes with political boundaries as a necessity.
>the weaker we are collectively
I don't think you can possibly be more divided than a state of incessant "inner" conflict. You'd be more unified if the people you actually agreed with were all in the same political union and in the same region rather than scattered out among people you clearly understand to be dangers to your liberty.
>National interests are not defined by some arbitrary geographical proximity
I'm not sure they matter unless they have some relation to you in the first place. Is it something religious? Do you get a sense of "spiritual wellness" when Trudeau does something "on behalf of Canada"?
Identify the stake - if it's literally religious like that, then that's just sad man.
> with people you think want to dominate and murder you
I don't recall saying this at any point. You can shove your kike straw man arguments up your ass shekelberg
>I don't recall saying this at any point
Because you didn't.
I'll speak to the fact that *I* certainly believe there are people in the U.S. who would wish to murder me and dominate me for *MY* views.
I'd find it odd you wouldn't believe there were such people in Canada - I think there clearly are.