Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "The Real News Network"
channel.
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
@Roger williams
The "left" today is pro globalist, pro open borders, pro multiculturalism, pro EU, pro status quo, pro establishment, and so on. And the Clintons its allied with is also pro-imperialism, wars, pro censorship, and pro oppressive trade policies that harms the 3rd world.
Here you do a classic neo leftist comment where you attack a person instead of their argument:
" Also, political "correctness" only frustrates people who want to use disturbing language and gender & racial stereotypes with no accountability."
It is not racism or sexism to hold people to the same standards as oneself. I never tell a black person to go back to his hut and stop appropriating white culture as he uses technologies and culture that white people have invented. So then I expect that blacks shouldn't cry about cultural appropriation either.
And I never call it "womensplaining" when a woman tries to learn me a thing, so then the stupid term "mansplaining" needs to die as well.
And the left is too brainless, dishonest and ignorant to see a difference between racism on one hand, and justified criticism of religion and immigration on the other hand.
If you are against homophobia, sexism, and hatred towards non-muslims then you get called an "islamophobe" - which is basicly the same thing as a "racist" according to the left.
So the left tries to silence the debate with political correctness. And now we see the backlash against the left come, as people all over the world is leaving this rotten sinking ship. And people join the nationalist right because they know that they are the only ones that dare to stand up to the muslim bullies that harass other immigrants for being to "westernized" and women that are having too much fun and go out and not weaing an ugly beekeeper suit.
Indeed. You lefttards simply doesn't understand how other people think. You see racism everyware - even in places where there is none. And its not usally the immigrants that feels offended when someone waves the national flag.
Nope.
Instead it is usally white leftwingers that feels offended on other peoples behalf. The left makes claims to represent other people and speak for their views.
But my mother thinks modern feminists are retarded and says that they don't speak for her views. More immigrants votes for the nationalist party in my country, than there are immigrants voting for the left.
So it is simply just nonsense to think that "feminism" and womens opinions are the same thing. They are not.
And many (if not even most) LBTQ community members does not share the leftwing pro-censorship views. Indeed, many LBTQ activists like Diana Davidson defends the typical white cis-males that the left loves to throw shit at, and says that they are in fact more tolerant towards LBTQ than most people inside the LBTQ community...
you see many homosexuals are for example intolerant towards bisexuals and calls them "gender traitors" and being mean to them when they flirt with a person of another gender.
So the modern left needs to die. And political correctness is something they can shove up into their ass.
I am not a rude person irl, but I do however think that people needs to grow some thicker skin. I see no reason why people who claim to have been offended always should
take precedence in the leftwing world view.
People feel offended all the time for the most stupid shit, and people needs to learn to live with getting their feelings hurt and move on.
I do for example think it would be a very bad idea to censor jokes or criticism of religion because a few religious fanatics feels offended. You can no longer call prophet Muhammed a pedophile in Austria eventhough he was one.
So where should one now draw the line in the sand about what people can joke about?
Shouldn't christians now also demand censorship towards people who are rude towards their ideology? And what about feminists, shouldn't they also be able to silence offensive comments they disagree with?
Where do you draw the line in the sand?
I say fuck them all. Everyone should have the right to mock and criticise every ideology even if some people will get angry and sad.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
People take more risks when the consquences aren't too harsh. Its true that it can lead to some "moral hazard problems", like the same problems as limit liability companies.
Welfare states get less lost days to strikes, less resitance to change and less demand for protectionism when people fear losing their livelyhood.
And its true that European immigration has failed, for two reasons. 1. too many low qualified people coming at the same time.
2. Not enough education. Rather than trying to make everything low wage jobs the government should try adapt the workers instead, so they could take other jobs and provide training. Matching supply and demand on the labour market.
And get a smart tax system so the housing market works well, and infrastucture, so people can take empety jobs.
High wages is the key, not low wage shit jobs.
High wages makes it more profitable to replace humans with robots. And with welfare the workers dont strike when it happens but retrains and take another job.
Your country gets rich by selling high tech products that few others are good at, thereby you can take very well paid.
woodchips, potato chips or microchips is the question.
If no safety net at all doesnt seem smart. Korea was forced to adopt free market policies to get IMF loans after the asian crisis. And since then the brightest minds have becoming doctors...so much so that they are about 5 times more common than before. Why is that? Why not becoming scientists or engineers? Because those are high risk jobs, so before even taking an education like that you try to get an education which will guarantee you an income no matter what, so if you get out of work you can open your own clinic.
This is just waste of peoples time, talent and money. And with a good social safety net resource allocation (the big brains so to say) would have been much more rational and better.
2
-
+Dave Snipes America was more succesful under the rule of communists leaders as Truman and Eisenhower with a 97% tax on the rich, than America today. And America become rich thanks to protectionism and not free trade, since it was the world champion of high tolls in the 1800s.
And its nothing wrong that the citizens get their share of the pie, since productivity is more based on the society and institituions than the individual. Even the richest guy on earth, Warren Buffet himself admitted this when he said that he would have been very poor if he had been born in a poor country instead, since he claim to be a very poor farmer.
The taxpayers have funded the research behind the internet, SIRI, GPS, semiconductors and touch screens which apple uses, and most of the drugs big pharma collects profits from, so its not unfair to share the pie instead of having a bunch of company owners taking everything and give nothing back to those who enabled their products in the first place.
2
-
Nato is outdated, and so are the EU - which was an institution created after the old colonial power France hoped to regain a voice on the world scene after her loss of her colonies and the loss of the Suez Canal. And France never liked the idea of remilitarizing Germany (as America wanted), but she could accept the idea if the German industry was put under international control where France had a saying... so the EU was created.
Fear of Russia is alos outdated. Only a clueless idiot think Putin is the same threat to Europe as the USSR. Russias population is declining, and its GDP is smaller than that of Spain, and her control over Eastern Europe is gone, and the military equipment is mostly outdated Soviet stuff.
So.. is there any need for European colonialism in 2017? Is there any risk of a Soviet invasion or a German-French war? I think not. And neighter am I willing to fight for an undemocratic, non-transparent, institution led by corrupt men with legal immunity. EU just wanna be like the USA. But I have zero interest in fighting for big buisness interest of EU prestige.
My country had peace for over 200 years without any EU so I prefer to let my own country build up its military with the purpose of self-defence by a conscripted mass-army, rather than join the EU plan of offensive battlegroups and rapid deployable forces of proffesional soliders... so people wouldn't whine as much over unpopular colonial wars, because its easier to support a pointless war fought with foreign legion troops instead of having your own son sitting in the frontline and fighting for nothing..
The EU needs to die. And each country should handle its own affairs, including its defence. And each country can trade with other countries - which have worked well for many European and Asian countries who havn't been EU members.
Instead of the stupid failed "one-size-fits-all" approach, each country will be free to design policies that actully suits them. So each country will get stronger, and therefore more capable of holding other countries up.
The world economy worked much better in the protectionist period 1945-75... than it have since after 1975 with the introduction of neoliberalism, and with the EU expansion from the 1990s onwards.
2
-
2
-
I agree. The left should continue to doubling down on the current road so the socialdemocracy in Europe can continue its Pasok trend and lose their seats in every European parliament as they lose all support.
The old left stood for class struggle and the welfare state, while the new left stands for identity politics and open borders. And the new and the old left stands in opposition to each other. Because of immigration.
Either you have open borders, or either you have a welfare state. Simple as that.
And in 2015 the new left won the struggle and told all old leftist to fuck off and leave the leftwing parties - which they did. And now they have joined "populists" instead because they are tired of all IDPOL bullshit, islamophilia and open borders. The leftwing parties are dying. While the populists gain ground.
And the IDPOL lefts solution is to doubling down of the current road - which makes even more people to abandon this sinking ship.
And now Socialdemocrats in Denmark and Sweden desperatly tries to change course to save themselves from utter destruction. 30 years ago did the Swedish socialdemocrats get 45% of the votes in a normal election, but now their support have fallen like a rock thanks for feminism and open borders - and the Swedish nationalists will probably become the largest political the next election.
Its fun to see the IDPOL movement finally destroying itself. Hopefully that would make it possible for a real leftwing party to grow in the future. A real left without feminism, LBGTQ, mulitculti, pro-EU, blacklivesmatter bullshit.
A real left that instead fights for ordinary men and women and the workers. That wants higher wages, democracy, national souverignty.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cosmicviewer477 "Haven't studied the European elections"
If you don't live in a bubble with likeminded people, then you would have noticed by now how the left is dying. Only 2 countries in western Europe got leftwing governments, and even in those (Spain and Portugal) the left have lost about 10% support the last decade.
In France have the socialdemocrats lost 90% of their seats in parliament. In Greece have the leftwing Pasok party gone from 44% support to 5%. Labour in UK managed to lose elections in labour strongholds like Stokes and Copeland that have supported labour for decades.
And the socialdemocrats in Sweden is sinking like a rock from 45% support in 1994 to 28% today. And the trend is similiar in rest of Scandinavia, and the Danish socialdemocrats have become a nationalist anti-immigration party just to stay politically relevant and not drop out of parliament.
And in the elections in 2017 held in Austria, Germany, France and the Netherlands did the left lose support in 94% of all the districts (890 out of 946).
And in France and the Netherlands have the left lost 20% of the votes. And the socialdemocrats are now a completly irrelevant force of just 5% of the votes in parliament.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/dec/29/2017-and-the-curious-demise-of-europes-centre-left
And this trend is worldwide. We have also seen landslide victories for the right in Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Chile and in Peru there even was two rightwing parties competing with each other for power and there was not even a leftwing candidate for the presidential run off.
And in the USA have seen a red wave that led to the Republicans getting Trump as their president, and the right took over control over congress, the senate, the house of representatives, and the supreme court - A total victory so to say.
And then the left tried a counter-offensive in the mid-term elections with the hyped Democratic "bluewave" that was said would sweap in and take over the country. But the bluewave ended in a failure. And everything seens like Trump will get re-elected since his approval ratings are strong, and Americans have historically tended to prefer to keep sitting presidents in office with only president Carter as an exception. Nor do I think Hillary or Pocahontas are strong enough to challange him.
"the so-called Walk-Away Movement which just became another useless hashtag"
You can call the walk away movement a fake fantasy all you want, but the election numbers speak for themselves. The modern left is not popular among ordinary people.
"Finally, this notion that people are pushing back against social justice is no indicator because they are probably just as misguided as you are"
Social justice activists are fighting each other. There are tremendous hypocrisy and doublethink in this movement. And the focus is on the most banal pointless issues like sexist air conditioning and racist-plasters.
So why should I care? You got nothing relevant to say, and there is therefore no reason to listen to you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I disagree. Britain could have gotten a much better deal if the negotiations had been done by a non-remainer and if traitor media didn't try to sabotage Brexit.
Britain had a strong hand at the negotiating table, since the EU is in economic trouble and the UK would leave a big black hole in the EU budget when leaving - which needs to be filled somehow by somebody. And when the EU is already having a popularity crisis and all strong Europhile leaders are handcuffed (Macron is super-unpopular, and Merkel is about to resign after catastrophic elections) then the EU would have to offer Britain something in return for British cash.
We now see what would happen if taxes would have to increase in EU countries like France to make up for all billions that EU loses with Brexit. The left have made catastrophic elections all over Europe while the populist right is winning everyware.
So if you wanna hold this EU shit togheter, then its necessary to solve this fiscal problem smoothly.
Another thing is that Britain can cause great harm to the EU economy a lot if the EU choose to play unfair - as they have. Trade wars are nearly always won by countries which are running a trade deficit (as Britain) while big exporters (like Germany) get severly harmed while the importer nations suffers nearly no harm to themselves at all.
USA and Japan during the 1930 illustrate this phenonemom.
Britain does not need Germany, as much as Germany needs Britain. Britain can always choose to buy cars from Japan, Korea, USA and other places instead of Germany - and other countries are happy to make hundreds of billions in profits from car sales to Britain if the Germans don't want to sell cars. And while hundreds of thousands of German workers lose their jobs, lots of jobs are created in another country.
So a skilled negotatior which doesn't betray her own country would use this fact to her advantage during the negotiations with the EU.
Britain is also a unique country. It does have good relations and historical ties with America and other places, and president Trump is very friendly with UK and wants allies in his trade wars. And this is also another thing that should give UK some leverage in the negotiations with the EU.
And even a worst case scenario of crashing out of the EU would not mean the end of the world. Trade will still happen with the rest of the world, even without a trade deal. Just like China and the EU could trade with each other for years without any trade deal in place. All that would happen would be that Britain then will trade according to WTO-rules. And that will not be the end of the world. Australia also only trade on WTO rules and that country is not poor like a failed state.
Transitioning away from the EU can be a little painful, but that is not the fault of Brexit but rather the fault of the EU. And staying within the EU will not end well for the economy since the economic policies of the EU are fundamentally flawed - as the Eurocrash in 2008 has shown.
Personally I hope that Brexit will mean the start of a new era of import-substitution, and that British manufacturing can make a comeback by Britain buy more British goods instead of importing similiar products from other countries. And that is the short term solution.
Exporting more stuff to other countries and dealing with hard international competion should be more of a longterm goal for Britain and that thing will need more time to achieve now when British manufacturing have been neglected so much for so long.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phaedrussocrates7636 First of all, just because I don't care as much about climate change as you do doesn't mean that I don't think we should reduce our dependency on fossile fuels. Peak oil, peak coal and peak natural gas are serious issues. What you do is to label everyone who disagrees with your climate views as a heretic and as an evil person. And of course you will scare people away from the left when you behave like this, you idiot.
"we will put a man on the Moon in 10 yrs"
I don't care to listen to racist fools who include reparations for the negro slavery in their plan.
And replacing all buildings in America with new energy effiecent buildings is just insanity in the level with Communist China where they demolished buildings to get wood for heating the owens in the steel mills so they could meet their governments insane targets of tonnes of steel produced.
Normally does a country only builds a few percent of new homes to add to the national housing stock, while most of peoples need for housing has to be meet by people trading houses with each other. But you insane clowns thinks that you could scale up things, and perhaps build 10 x times as many homes in a decade.
And not only that... you fix all real estate such as stores, depots, office buildings, warehouses, industrial buildings, shopping malls, hotels etc
There is not enough skilled construction workers for that and nor do you have enough cranes and machines to build all that in just a decade - as you are also shutting down all fossile fuel.
There is absolutly no reason to take the left serious anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1