Political alignments

[Mortimer]

Im culturally/socially conservative. I believe in the family unit of men and women, against gay lifestyle, transgenderism etc. Against promiscuity and hedonism. And I hold dear religious values. Im pro life and against abortion. But at the same time Im pro racial equality/integration, minority rights, i believe in equality of interracial marriage with same race marriage etc. Im also social-democrat I do believe in capitalism, but not in dog eats dog capitalism. I believe the state should provide health care, social security to the socially weak and disadvantage. Im pro working class rights like minimum wage and protection of workers rights.

Which party or political movement in your country am I closest to?

Also describe yourself if you wish.

[Bobby Martnen]

I'm generally very conservative

I oppose high rates of immigration, especially from non-western countries to Western countries, and don't think Islam should be given any special considerations in Europe. I would like very much to see most non-European migrants removed from Europe, and all illegal aliens removed from America.

On the flip side, I think that native/old minorities (i.e. Jews and Gypsies in Europe, Blacks and Indians in America) have every right to live in Europe/America and should be treated as equal to the dominant ethnic group.

I'm pro-gay marriage but against transgenderism and all of the open expression of sexuality in modern society.

[Mingle]

I am generally against racism, but I don't think it is racist to want to preserve your ethnicity/kin/race, so I have some sympathies to White nationalists in Europe. I don't believe in racial discrimination though and support racial equality. I'm generally against mass immigration but I don't like the vitriol that comes out of the anti-immigration people, so prefer not to associate with them much.

I'm against everything LGBT. I don't think gays should be allowed partnerships or civil unions as that is normalizing their perversion to some degree. They should be treated like how we treat incesters. I support the traditional family union and view it as the pillar of our society. I also believe there is too much hedonism and promiscuity being promoted nowadays. I used to say that religious influence was all bad before when I was more liberal, but now I don't really adhere to those views anymore since Western atheists don't seem to have a moral compass (with very rare exceptions). I still think there should be some form of separation, but I don't support sidelining religious folk (unless they're crazy ISIS-type people of course). Ideally, it'd be nice to be like Vietnam and China (socially conservative + non-religious), but that doesn't seem realistic in the West.

I'm pro-choice. I believe that women should have the right to an abortion as women and men can both make mistakes, and not all of them (especially women) are ready to deal with the consequences. But I do feel that it is wrong to have a late term abortion. Although, my views on this aren't 100% set.

I believe it would be better for the family if the father worked and the mother stayed at home with the children, but I would like to think I am a practical and reasonable person, so I don't think women that want to work should be actively discouraged. If women end up having no job, then they'll have to put up with hypothetical abusive husbands since they can't afford to divorce. Also, many of them want jobs and to go out, and shouldn't be locked in. But the negative consequence of this is trouble taking care of kids and thus a lower birth rate (which is not good). So the government should incentivize people to have more kids somehow.

I believe we should try to stay out of wars. I don't think the US should fight wars for other countries but there are times when I can sympathize with military action. Those times are when ethnic nationalists are fighting for their freedom/separation. But I still think military action should be avoided whenever it can.

I'm okay with people having guns, but it should be hard to get them.

I'm anti-drugs and anti-alcohol, but I'm not sure they should all be illegal.

Im also social-democrat I do believe in capitalism, but not in dog eats dog capitalism. I believe the state should provide health care, social security to the socially weak and disadvantage. Im pro working class rights like minimum wage and protection of workers rights.

My views are identical to yours here.

So overall, our views are pretty similar, but I wouldn't call myself 'conservative' due to it's name being tainted by racists. I don't mind the term 'traditionalist', but I feel like that boxes my views and I don't think all my views are traditionalist (e.g. pro-choice).

[Mortimer]

I am generally against racism, but I don't think it is racist to want to preserve your ethnicity/kin/race, so I have some sympathies to White nationalists in Europe. I don't believe in racial discrimination though and support racial equality. I'm generally against mass immigration but I don't like the vitriol that comes out of the anti-immigration people, so prefer not to associate with them much.

Its pretty much racist bro, its just sugar coated behind "nice words". Its xenophobic, why would want someone to live only in a white neighbourhood or in a white only country if he doesnt hate other races or maybe has a phobia or something?

[Mingle]

Its pretty much racist bro, its just sugar coated behind "nice words". Its xenophobic, why would want someone to live only in a white neighbourhood or in a white only country if he doesnt hate other races or maybe has a phobia or something?

I'll use Germany as an example since Germans are more than just generic White. What if a German wants Germany to stay 90-95% White German (this means not only opposition to non-Whites but to Eastern Euros as well to some degree). Keeping something 100% is not very practical, but at least trying to keep it at a very high percentage is a bit different. Btw, this doesn't mean that they should deport everyone of a different background, but that they can limit (not ban) non-Germans in the future and try to encourage the birth rate among the existing population. That way Germany can still stay German like it was for over a thousand years. I think that the diverse ethnolinguistic groups (and races) are a good part of human diversity and trying to preserve them isn't insensible. I've seen some people argue that there is no point in preserving languages and that it would be easier if we all spoke English, which was something I didn't agree with. So my views are somewhat similar here.

[Mortimer]

I'll use Germany as an example since Germans are more than just generic White. What if a German wants Germany to stay 90-95% White German (this means not only opposition to non-Whites but to Eastern Euros as well to some degree). Keeping something 100% is not very practical, but at least trying to keep it at a very high percentage is a bit different. Btw, this doesn't mean that they should deport everyone of a different background, but that they can limit (not ban) non-Germans in the future and try to encourage the birth rate among the existing population. That way Germany can still stay German like it was for over a thousand years. I think that the diverse ethnolinguistic groups (and races) are a good part of human diversity and trying to preserve them isn't insensible. I've seen some people argue that there is no point in preserving languages and that it would be easier if we all spoke English, which was something I didn't agree with. So my views are somewhat similar here.

I think human diversity is not static but fluent, similar as evolution evolution never stops similar just that human diversity can change faster then evolution even. It needs a militaristic fascist apparatus to keep the races seperate. And would go hand in hand with inhumane and injustice behaviour as we see from segregation in the south and jim crow, from apartheid in southafrica, from nazi germany etc.

[Jennifer]

I am pretty centrist/liberal.

[Mingle]

I think human diversity is not static but fluent, similar as evolution evolution never stops similar just that human diversity can change faster then evolution even. It needs a militaristic fascist apparatus to keep the races seperate. And would go hand in hand with inhumane and injustice behaviour as we see from segregation in the south and jim crow, from apartheid in southafrica, from nazi germany etc.

I'm not talking about Hitler-style racial preservation but a sensible degree of preservation (90-95%). For example, there are some people saying that if too many Han people immigrate to Tibet, then Tibetans will become a minority and that China is threatening their culture. If what they say is true, then shouldn't Tibetans be allowed to want to restrict Han migration to that Tibetans don't become a minority in their land? If someone doesn't want the Kurdish regions of Iraq to become Arabized, then is that also wrong?

Btw, sometimes migration can lead to loss of territory. Sikkim used to be Tibetan majority, but then they allowed Nepalis to migrate there in large numbers. Nepalis then became the majority and held a referendum and voted Sikkim out of existence. It became an Indian state in 1975. After this, Bhutan deported most of their Nepalis out of Bhutan. There are other examples in history like this. So I think wanting some a large degree of preservation is not something bad. Also, I never advocated segregation.

[Mortimer]

I'm not talking about Hitler-style racial preservation but a sensible degree of preservation (90-95%). For example, there are some people saying that if too many Han people immigrate to Tibet, then Tibetans will become a minority and that China is threatening their culture. If what they say is true, then shouldn't Tibetans be allowed to want to restrict Han migration to that Tibetans don't become a minority in their land? If someone doesn't want the Kurdish regions of Iraq to become Arabized, then is that also wrong?

Btw, sometimes migration can lead to loss of territory. Sikkim used to be Tibetan majority, but then they allowed Nepalis to migrate there in large numbers. Nepalis then became the majority and held a referendum and voted Sikkim out of existence. It became an Indian state in 1975. After this, Bhutan deported most of their Nepalis out of Bhutan. There are other examples in history like this. So I think wanting some a large degree of preservation is not something bad. Also, I never advocated segregation.

well chinese are much bigger power then tibetans and its politically motivated by the communist government and planned etc. i dont see this happening in western countries except if you say jews are behind it and there is a secret plann etc. to destroy the white race. i think at least old minorities should be treated equally, and immigrants who are here since longer and were born here etc. maybe new immigration can be restricted. Most western countries have strict immigration laws anyways, well recently we see a refugee crisis but usually you need to be a proffessional to get a visa for work, just check USA.gov visa application requirements.

[Mingle]

well chinese are much bigger power then tibetans and its politically motivated by the communist government and planned etc. i dont see this happening in western countries except if you say jews are behind it and there is a secret plann etc. to destroy the white race. i think at least old minorities should be treated equally, and immigrants who are here since longer and were born here etc. maybe new immigration can be restricted. Most western countries have strict immigration laws anyways, well recently we see a refugee crisis but usually you need to be a proffessional to get a visa for work, just check USA.gov visa application requirements.

I don't care about USA preserving it's White majority really. I was mainly talking about Europe preserving it's ethnic groups (Germans, Dutch, English, etc).

If it's politically motivated, why is that different? The result is the same.