Populists are stupid. Populism is stupid. Populist movements are for stupid people

YOU MUST BE MENTALLY IMPAIRED.

Fuck off back to the politics board you glassy eyed dribbling shitheel cunt.

no you must be

Do I count you among the low tier people with no knowledge of politics then?

There is no "fair" way to sort out who's a retard such as yourself from those capable of rational thought. And no good way to sort through their assorted rational thoughts to cull the thoughts with ill intentions, let alone the ones that will yield bad results.

Liberal democracies are generally about keeping people in a position of power who think they know more than they do from fucking the whole thing up for everybody.

Populism is a strategy, not an ideology. You get left and right wing populists.

"You're are populist!"
"Of what tho?"

This.
>when I like it, it's liberty
>when I don't, it's Populism.tm

He went on /pol/ and got shut down. He's picking the low-hanging fruit of an agreeable audience, here. History &, strikes again.

you are that low tier person you talk about m8, most of us are.

Listen to this guy
Populism is at the core of democracy, it's a viable strategy to win elections. You can't just win the voter's sympathy without some populist rhetoric on top of it

>hitler pic
So you assume that only rightwing politics can be populist? Leftists appeal to emotion as much as rightwing politicians do, also muh free shit

>So you assume that only rightwing politics can be populist?

Not at all. All whining about "the 1%" is essentially left wing populism.

>Democracy is great!
>Until the demos actually has power!
>Aristocracy is great!
>Until the aristocrats actually acknowledge the people!
>Socialism is great!
>Until the proletariat seizes the means of production!
>Fascism is great!
>Until the classes start collaborating!

Only in a eurocentric tunnel vision worldview could you conclude people like Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen are "extreme".

We've reached a point in western history where wanting some basic level of border control to restrict inflows to manageable numbers is considered "the far right".

Let that sink in for a second and tell me we don't live in a world completely dominated by liberalism in the west.

>Let that sink in for a second and tell me we don't live in a world completely dominated by liberalism in the west.
While this is true, it's absurd to deny that the quote-unquote 'far right' isn't gaining power--Trump in le ebin White House, Brexit, etc. It's not like these groups lack representation, even if they are persecuted by opinion-makers and consensus-manufacturers.

>We've reached a point in western history where wanting some basic level of border control to restrict inflows to manageable numbers is considered "the far right".

It's more about rhetorics and spearheading an ideology, rather than about some "basic" level of border control and frankly the left/right concept of wouldn't really put them in other place than the "far" right wing.

>rhetoric

Which is just standard civic nationalism 99% of the time, which only confirms my point even more.

If you're referring to "rhetoric" in the sense "I looked at this [center-right party that want border control] and looked at all of their members, parliamentarians and supporters and found one guy who said something about Jews on twitter once a couple of years ago" then, shit, I don't know what to say to you.

I mean everyone has skeletons in their closets. A huge part of the various social democrat and green parties in the west are run and staffed by people who were literal gommies and even maoists and shit, e.g. Barosso.

Do you even know what rhetoric is?

well that lowtier can vote for his advantage, public schools etc, don git me wrung but, the point of democracy is so that low tier can try to better his life through politics... namsayin?

>the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.

In other words, for "populist far right wing parties", some basic bullshit civic nationalism.

I mean most of them don't even have the balls to say "whites shouldn't be reduced to minorities in their own countries".

>spearheading an ideology

They are liberals, just like any other mainstream western politician has been for the past century or so. Including Donald Trump.

>rhetoric

Their rhetoric is also liberal (freedom, liberty, in many cases secularism).

>rather than about some "basic" level of border control and frankly the left/right concept of wouldn't really put them in other place than the "far" right wing.

Reformulate this sentence, it makes no sense.

>I mean most of them don't even have the balls to say "whites shouldn't be reduced to minorities in their own countries".
Because--guess what?--that's ineffective rhetoric. It comes off as unhinged to most of the people who hear it. A significant portion of the Western electorate isn't white. That's a fact. It's hard to deal with for ethno-nationalists, but it's true. Politicians need to appeal to voters, and saying "We'll deport all non-whites if we get power" is a great way to lose non-white votes.
I bet you're OK with LGBTQi+ nonsense in the West, though.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact their rhetoric is milquetoast and they have resigned themselves to the fact ethnostates have been reduced to literal empire-states.

So what exactly is your point?

>I bet you're OK with LGBTQi+ nonsense in the West, though.

Eh, no? Why would I be? I'm opposed to all the tentacles of liberalism.

People/Ideologues are a tool for power

>So what exactly is your point?
That white nationalism isn't the sort of ideology that attracts effective politicians in countries with significant non-white populations and universal suffrage.
>Eh, no? Why would I be?
I assumed you were Alt Right, and the Alt Right is very pro-fag.

>That white nationalism isn't the sort of ideology that attracts effective politicians in countries with significant non-white populations and universal suffrage.

I agree. But my initial point was that people such as Geert Wilders are not rhetorically or ideologically "far right" in any meaningful sense of the term (i.e. a sense of the term that encompasses places other than western europe and north america and the opinions of white urban libtards).

>I assumed you were Alt Right, and the Alt Right is very pro-fag.

I think we should do what our ancestors did and ostracize their behavior and cast them out of their families if they ever become too conspicuous. Fags should keep their sodomy in the closet. Certainly the normalization of faggotry is disgusting.

Also the "alt-right" doesn't exist, it basically refers to anyone who opposes liberals who isn't controlled opposition.

>But my initial point was that people such as Geert Wilders are not rhetorically or ideologically "far right" in any meaningful sense of the term
Considering that it's an English language term, and that China is run by Communists, I don't know what you're talking about.
>I think we should do what our ancestors did and ostracize their behavior and cast them out of their families if they ever become too conspicuous. Fags should keep their sodomy in the closet. Certainly the normalization of faggotry is disgusting.
I think we should stone them to death.
>Also the "alt-right" doesn't exist, it basically refers to anyone who opposes liberals who isn't controlled opposition.
There are enough people that self-identify as Alt Right that I feel confident in saying that you're wrong.

>Considering that it's an English language term, and that China is run by Communists, I don't know what you're talking about.

The PRC is a technocratic nationalist state well to the right of any western state (openly embraces hierarchy as moral good through its revival of confucianism and state bureaucratic structures/educational systems, embraces heritability and eugenics, fiercely nationalistic, highly racist etc), it has nothing to do with Communism anymore.

>I think we should stone them to death.

Are you Muslim?