[ home / overboard ] [ soy / qa / raid / r ] [ craft ] [ int / pol ] [ a / an / asp / biz / mtv / r9k / tech / v / sude / x ] [ q / news / chive / rules / pass / bans / status ] [ wiki / booru / irc ]

A banner for soyjak.party

/pol/ - International /Pol/itics & /Bant/er

Politics & countrywars
Catalog
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1771858992007j-1.gif 📥︎ (70.39 KB, 640x640) ImgOps

 â„–3203060[Quote]

The avagre nigger cost the White tax payer 300K in his life time.
Meaning that the Niggers population have costed Whtie people more than 68 trillion dollar since '70s While the entire slave market cap didn't pass 90 billion dollar in the it highest peak (in today's money)
For that cheap cotton Amerimutts could've had
>Free Healthcare
>A colony on a other planet
>A higher welfare
>Rail roads that connect the country
>Better schools
>53% less crimes
And they throw it all for cheap cotton.
So remember
>Those who inslave sub-humans are lower than the sub-humans they inslaved.

 â„–3203064[Quote]

I suppose slavery bleeds out a country in the long run

 â„–3203068[Quote]

This implies liberation was inevitable.

 â„–3203076[Quote]

>>3203064
Slaves owners have a low IQ and a cuck fetish.
Imagine letting a nigger work for you near your wife and kids?
And they can't comprehend future either

 â„–3203077[Quote]

>>3203068
Killing them was the only good options.
>The south wanted them to be kept as slaves
>The North wanted to free them
They are both lower than these Niggers

 â„–3203086[Quote]

>>3203077
Lincoln fought very hard to get them the fuck out of the country btw. Why do you think liberia exists. Of course, they killed him.

 â„–3203088[Quote]

>>3203076
At the time of the slavery rush it seemed like Slavery was undefeatable in terms of labor power and the support from the progressive demands of the industrial boom made it seem like it's going to be a necessity. Times were changing however and with that change also comes it's side of societal growth and views towards Niggers

 â„–3203089[Quote]

>>3203064
and now we know why america won

 â„–3203097[Quote]

>>3203086
Lincoln was a one guy.
I am talking about the mindset of the people.
Lincoln was based indeed
>>3203089
You could've had more, way more of this if your ancestors didn't trade it for cotton.
>>3203088
Half Trve.
Irish slaves existed, but Niggers were too cheap and dint fight like the Irish

 â„–3203099[Quote]

larp larp sahur

 â„–3203101[Quote]

>>3203060 (OP)
What do you think of enslaving them in their own countries. Like enslaving indians within india.

 â„–3203112[Quote]

>>3203097
Doebeit the Irish were seen as higher than the Negroes so of course they wouldn't enslave them outright. If we are talking about the Nigger takeover doebeit it was always destined to come even had America flung them out wholly back to Africa. The British sever off direct slavery sooner but after a while they fell down from the Brown horde

 â„–3203131[Quote]

The issue is that welfare is meant to sustain an individual experiencing temporary hardship. It's meant to be a state of embarrassment. This system is incompatible with a group of people with no concept of shame. In fact, they actually seem to draw their pride from their poverty and reliance on the system. This is strictly incompatible with civilization as a whole.

 â„–3203136[Quote]

>>3203131
TSMT holy fucking shit my blood boiled seeing pipo imitate Niggers and their pride for le nigger life in nigger hardships and trends

 â„–3203154[Quote]

>>3203131
Welfare is not meant to sustain people in the short term. What happens if someone doesnt get a job? They get back on welfare. Its a loop that cant be broken. You disallow them from collecting welfare? They end up looking for welfare again or they get a job in which case welfare was useless. Its inately continuous.

In parts of Germany 1 in 4 people are on welfare. At that point, that group of people are a distinct minority with an immense economic influence and political loyalty to whoever upholds the welfare system. Want to get rid of the welfare state? The economic impact would be severe on the 3 of 4 and your party would comit public suicide as there is no replacement for the lack of spending. Not only that but the number naturally grows as taxation rises for the 1 in 4 which means less of the 3 in 4 see a reason to keep working and so on.

 â„–3203156[Quote]

They should've done the arab method because then all of the slaves would've died afterwards like they did in the arab nigger slave trade

 â„–3203159[Quote]

>>3203156
Arabs are brown because they fucked niggers. So that clearly didnt work.

 â„–3203160[Quote]

>>3203101
Isn't a bad idea
But slavery is wrong either way, just kill them and take their resources
>>3203131
It isn't the welfare, it's prison complex, the damage, the crimes and other stuff.
>77% of Niggers baraly pay back what they received from the system
>23% generate a negative value
https://www.renegadetribune.com/call-them-by-their-name-part-v-jewish-control-and-operations-2/?doing_wp_cron=1768565942.1167519092559814453125

 â„–3203162[Quote]

File: ClipboardImage.png 📥︎ (814.06 KB, 1207x805) ImgOps

>>3203156
>They chopped off ma bibisea maine, how iz i suppose to breed with ma chocolate kween now

 â„–3203165[Quote]

>>3203156
Saracens aren't Arabs or Semitic to being with.
And modren Saracen counties are infested with Niggers, look up UEA nigger population
>>3203159
Saracens aren't Arabs

 â„–3203174[Quote]

>>3203154
>They get a job in which case welfare was useless
If they didn't have a job, but needed money in the period before they found a new job, then the welfare worked as intended.

Realistically, I think the only solution is to subject welfare recipients to semi-homelessness. They should have to live in extremely modest government facilities to minimize their cost on the taxpayer. They should receive only the absolute minimum amount of food required to sustain them, and they should receive no cash of their own to spend. Additionally, any children they conceive while receiving welfare should be aborted and result in forced sterilization. Existing children should be able to receive benefits.

 â„–3203175[Quote]

>>3203154
Well what do you think the solution on this would be? Personally I think it's the redpillimg of public perceptions on them. Simply instill to them what welfare is for, temporary aid for the populace to stand up on hard times. If the men on welfare makes no clear effort to better themselves then the Public is expected to shun them for being useless

 â„–3203176[Quote]

>>3203174
I think welfare is best done for in subsidized nature and moreso like a Bond. The Government helps you to pay but in turn you must finish a Quota to repay once you are able

 â„–3203177[Quote]

>>3203176
And what happens if they simply don't pay? Are they imprisoned?

 â„–3203178[Quote]

>>3203177
Debt slavery wasn't THAT bad

 â„–3203179[Quote]

>>3203177
The government takes cut from their wage. I do state that the repay period is in effect once they are Able

 â„–3203181[Quote]

This is why capitalism and individualism lost. They lead to short-sightedness.

 â„–3203182[Quote]

>>3203181
This is why social democracy won. It combines the best of both systems.

 â„–3203184[Quote]

>>3203174
People on welfare are not sucessful people. Whats the difference in taking welfare or working a the job aforded to the unsucessful? Trading a few hundered euros a month for free housing, electricity, water, gas and 40 hours more freedom is the superior choice. Hence, anyone with a brain in that position would pick the welfare. So those that could get a job wont because they are too smart.

Have children? Why work 40 hours for a net loss when you can collect benefits and care for them.

 â„–3203185[Quote]

>>3203179
Again, what if they simply never get a job? That's the entire issue that we're trying to solve. Besides, if an individual has to repay their welfare, they're even less likely to want to take a job, because then they'd not only have to build up their savings and pay for their personal expenses, but also repay all the aid they received. I tend to think of welfare more as collective insurance rather than a personal utility.

 â„–3203189[Quote]

>>3203184
This implies the welfare is generous enough to afford you a comfortable life. Why would we begin our conversation with that as the assumption. Of course the system is going to be abused if you let people live in comfort while relying on the government.

 â„–3203190[Quote]

>>3203189
The standard for what a 'comfortable life' is varies quite a lot from person to person doe.

 â„–3203193[Quote]

>>3203182
Which social democracies "won" exactly?

 â„–3203195[Quote]

File: Neutral_Markiplier.png 📥︎ (6.61 KB, 600x800) ImgOps

>>3203193
I like Denmark.

 â„–3203196[Quote]

>>3203175
Any pushback is immediately met by the comfort and warmth of the left leaving the welfare system untoutched to those addicted to it. The solution is involuntary labour of those under welfare. With the bare minimum afforded of course. This isnt going to happen any time soon because, as i have said, the welfare class is politically loyal to stagnation of any efforts in that fight.

 â„–3203198[Quote]

>>3203190
Obviously, but the vast majority of welfare recipients in the United States would find it incredibly uncomfortable to have to live in what's essentially a homeless shelter in order to collect their benefits.

 â„–3203199[Quote]

>>3203189
If your society is going to implament welfare, they will allways implament it in a ridiculously charitable way. I began with that assumption because its the reality.

 â„–3203200[Quote]

>>3203196
This is why pensioners are so reactionary.

 â„–3203202[Quote]

>>3203195
If quality of life is your main index, then I imagine the various Gulf states are actually the best in the world. Imagine waking up in your palace, not having to do anything all day, and still collecting a fortune in oil royalties just for existing. I think they won more than anything.

 â„–3203203[Quote]

>>3203202
This exists only due to them importing millions of slaves from places like India. It isn't really sustainable.

 â„–3203204[Quote]

>>3203196
>Involuntary labor
What kind? Also, are they compensated for this labor?

 â„–3203207[Quote]

>>3203203
It's entirely sustainable. There will almost always be endless masses of poor people to import. The real question of sustainability is the source of their revenues.

 â„–3203208[Quote]

>>3203195
Social democrats in Denmark are failing slowly. Not only that, but they are considered right wing nowadays which is why they are failing in the polls lol.

 â„–3203212[Quote]

>>3203199
Historically this wasn't true at all. The modern conception of welfare is completely distorted. It's absolutely possible to have a welfare system that provides only enough for an uncomfortable existence.

 â„–3203213[Quote]

>>3203204
Labour that is unfufilling, gross or otherwise inscentivising to seek other work. Prison if non compliant or willfully useless on the job.

 â„–3203215[Quote]

>>3203212
Maybe then. Not today. Human rights courts, the left and burocracy make the opposite a reality.

 â„–3203216[Quote]

>>3203207
This is what white slave owners thought while artificially creating a dozen or so niggerhells in the Caribbean.

 â„–3203217[Quote]

>>3203185
hmmm there needs to be a system that forces them to take a job or be forced to an unbearable point to which discourages any intent to live on welfare, meant for those who has the strength to uphold themselves of course. What do you think of making the environment for them always pushing them to get a Job and if it is evident that they voluntarily do not want to have a Job despite the availability of positions then have them denied welfare. For the Homeless I like the idea of the Dutch VPN, that is having them put in a sort of Levittowns and having them work with an extra tax put on on them. I'm sorry if I'm retarded xir I'm way below your league but i want to be better o algx

 â„–3203218[Quote]

>>3203208
Blame the prolecattle

 â„–3203225[Quote]

>>3203213
Are they at least compensated for this labor?
>>3203215
>Human rights courts
Ahhh, European problems. The left and bureaucracy are unfortunately near-global. Even still, the issue is bad enough that I think the population could be convinced to take a more aggressive stance against welfare. At least in America.

 â„–3203227[Quote]

>>3203216
If they hadn't lost their colonies, this wouldn't have happened.

 â„–3203230[Quote]

>>3203227
>If everything had gone right, then it wouldn't have gone wrong!
Well duh

 â„–3203238[Quote]

>>3203225
No. You get food, housing, ammenities and work 45 hours a week with a small allowance. Basically, wake up, clean litter off the street, meet quota (if not met, no allowance), sleep, repeat.

 â„–3203241[Quote]

>>3203230
I don't understand what your implying. The underclasses are always more numerous than the leadership. There is always the possibility of revolt. Slaves have the least capacity to revolt since they lack any education and are only entrusted with the most basic of tasks. Their only advantage is population. Who should they have made work in the fields of not African slaves?

 â„–3203243[Quote]

>>3203241
They should've made white prolecattle work the fields at the cost of lower profit.

 â„–3203249[Quote]

>>3203243
slavery giving higher profits is a myth

 â„–3203255[Quote]

>>3203238
That still sounds net negative for tax contribution. It depends on how generous the housing, allowance and amenities are, but this just sounds like having a low level government job. Personally I believe the most important parts of any welfare system are not being able to conceive children while being a recipient, and not being given any cash. The involuntary labor part seems interesting, but I doubt there's enough trash for all welfare recipients to pick up.

 â„–3203259[Quote]

>>3203255
Being on welfare gives you the time to have kids. You need to take away the time.

 â„–3203260[Quote]

>>3203249
Slavery gave more short-term profits to slaveowners but was very much a net-negative on the overall economy on the longrun (and specially on white laborers). This is why claiming every white person benefitted from slavery is retarded. If you had white laborers doing the job instead it would've benefitted everyone on the longrun, at the cost of lower short-term profit for the slaveowners themselves.



[Return][Catalog][Go to top][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard ] [ soy / qa / raid / r ] [ craft ] [ int / pol ] [ a / an / asp / biz / mtv / r9k / tech / v / sude / x ] [ q / news / chive / rules / pass / bans / status ] [ wiki / booru / irc ]