Sorry I don't speak to <@&350743889667424256>s @Scary_Clown

You see everyone moans about right wing parties gaining support lately but no one has any proper solutions to appease the voters who are switching over... so... it is going to keep happening. The main problem for people is Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and the fact the EU wants to make things worse with less secure borders, in till those things are addressed, which we all ‘now they won’t be then you’re going to see more rising populist right wing parties in Europe.

And then we have centrist and centre left parties who don’t know where the fuck they stand right now, I mean why should they get support if they just want more integration into a fucked up system and focusing on blooming identity politics.

Any neo-cons want to talk about fag marriage

What is our opinion on classical liberalism?

what are we all suppose to have the same idea?

Neocons and Neolibs are just the same globalist party under different names

Find me one significant difference in policy between May's government, and Blair's. I'll be waiting.

What the hell is going on with Assange? Are they really going to kick him out of the embassy? Anyone have an update?

"The new president pledged to uphold asylum as long as Assange's life is at risk"

So no, nothing will change just because they disagree on Catalonia

Only real update is Clinton now blaming Assange for losing the election.

I heard it was the misogynists

>still talking about the election

>still talking about talking about the election

Tbh

>still having Pepe pfps

I think Clinton is broken

Without the presidency she just keeps repeating her last known program

Im just trying to get a general consuses.

Consenses about what?

What this server thinks of classical liberalism

Looks a lot like what libertarians believe.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

My friend is a classical liberal but sometimes acts like a progressive, he believes in the whole trans movement

Most of the ones I know tend to be conservative with their rights (muh guns, muh land, muh freedums), and liberal on social issues.

He had a gun at his old house and Im pretty sure hes is conserative with rights but on social issues hes not so great, I cant even tell him that its fake science

He wont have it

There's science about trans stuff? I mean.. other than them having mental illnesses (typically)?

I mean, the science about the trans stuff is fake

@Yaboku technically much guns and muh freedoms would be liberal on social issues

but those damn liberal parties pulled a switcharooni on us

I have a book on it

What science?

Science is politicized, there is no denying that. The science that the trans activist uses to defend the trans movement was created by harrassing scientists and psychologists.

Just fyi, WPA2 has been broken (again)

https://www.krackattacks.com/

Fuck

Thats not good

"But what about science? Aren’t male and female basic facts of biology? As it happens, “scientific” claims have been crucial to the Transgender Moment. The very phrase “gender identity” was coined by Dr. John Money, who founded the Johns Hopkins University’s sex-change clinic. Money had long studied hermaphroditic children. Called “intersex” today, these are kids who have been born with indeterminate secondary sexual characteristics: enlarged clitorises that resemble penises, or stubby penises that resemble clitorises. Money and others postulated that these kids had received conflicting doses of male and female hormones in utero. But Money further postulated that parents and doctors could make a decision about the sex of the child, and that given surgery and socialization, the child could be happily raised as either a boy or a girl. And he didn’t apply that principle just to children whose biological sex was ambiguous. Money claimed that “gender identity” in general was caused less by nature than by nurture. Money’s most famous case was the “John-Joan case”—a textbook example of the human tragedies that result when science is dragooned into the service of ideology. It involved a baby boy whose penis had been burned off in a routine circumcision. The distraught parents saw Money on television talking about his successful experiments with intersex children—how they were never the wiser about their sex at birth, provided they were socialized in the right way. Money was overjoyed to hear from the Reimer family because they came to him with identical twin boys, who..."

"would make the perfect test subjects for his theory. The two boys had identical DNA, but one would be raised as the boy he was and the other would be raised as a girl that he wasn’t. Money had the penis-less boy castrated and a rudimentary vulva created. The boy’s parents renamed him Brenda, put him in dresses, and began raising him as a girl. The experiment went on for years, with Money dutifully reporting to peer-reviewed scientific journals, to the media, and in bestselling books that the experiment was a ringing success. The boy without a penis was now a girl who preferred to wear dresses, played with dolls, and demonstrated a strong maternal instinct. In reality, the experiment was a failure from the very beginning. The boy’s parents reported that when first put into a dress....."