Thursday, September 1, 2016

Owen Smith wants the British Labour Party to commit Political Suicide

See here.

According to Owen Smith, Labour must be strongly “pro-immigration” even if it means “shedding votes to UKIP.” He’s also going full SJW, apparently endorsing quotas for women and ethnic minorities.

What is there even to say about this?

This would mean the final collapse of the Labour party into a middle-class, pro-mass immigration, SJW, multiculturalist party – possibly even still pro-EU, despite the Brexit vote, which will all show the final and contemptible betrayal of the working class.

That will be political suicide for the Labour party. End of story.


  1. What is really happening is:

    * A large chunk of "The Establishment" wants the next general election campaign to be a rerun of the referendum.

    * They need a party that campaigns for "Remain", and the Conservatives cannot be that party as the vast majority of their members voted "Leave".

    * So it needs to be a party where the majority of voters did vote "Remain", and for obvious reasons that can only be "New Labour".

    * J Corbyn has declared that he does not intend to oppose the referendum result, obviously because he does not intend to destroy the Labour party; if the Labour party campaigned for "Remain" at general election time, they would lose a large part of that 37% of their "Leave" voters to UKIP.

    * Therefore "The Establishment" want a "New Conservatives for Europe" party, that is "New Labour", to be lead by someone who will campaign at general election time for "Remain".

    * The idea is that "New Labour" will lose forever the 37% of mostly low income voters etc. who voted "Leave", but gain a fraction of the 48% of Conservative voters that voted "Remain", in particular ex-Liberal voters, and win the election on a "Conservatives for Europe" platform of "Remain" and more neoliberalism and neoconservatism, and in particular higher house prices.

    That is J Corbyn's electoral strategy is to keep the Labour voting based whole, get back some of the 3 million Labour voters who abstained as they could not see much a difference between "New Labour" and Conservative PFI etc., and wait for the housing boom to end, which will get the Conservatives fired by voters, as that's the only thing that gets voters to stop returning a majority for incumbent governments.

    My impression is that some part of "The Establishment" want instead "New Labour" to become the new Cleggist Liberals. But as a mandelsonian put it:
    «Labour will not win the next election by relying on disaffected leftwing Liberal Democrat voters, but will also have to frame policies that are attractive to former Conservative voters in the south, the shadow cabinet member Caroline Flint has said.»

    The problem with "The Establishment"'s electoral plan is that a "New Conservatives for Europe"/"New Labour"/"New Liberals" it is amazingly risky, because:

    * It seems unlikely that there is a "New Conservatives for Europe" majority of the voters, and some large part of the Conservative party would fight it hard; the others would follow "hints" from their "sponsors" to "take a breather" for "patriotic" reasons, and they would be taken care of if they lost their seat.

    * "The Establishment" may be betting that "New Conservatives for Europe" could win a majority of *seats*, even if "Leave" parties could get a majority of *votes*, as "Leave" votes would be mostly wasted on second place UKIP and Conservative candidates; the main difference between referendum and general elections being FPTP... but...

    * On the UK electoral map Leave has a 192 seat majority!:

    The majority of the country voted for it. The majority of constituencies Labour need to win want it.

    Plus a situation where in mid-2016 a referendum is won by 52% majority of the popular vote, and it is reversed by a parliamentary majority with a 40% (at best!) of popular votes would be quite dramatic, to say the least.

  2. «48% of Conservative voters»

    Whoops! I meant 42%.

  3. LK, other than his public pro-EU stance (which following the vote seems accepting of the result), what are your thoughts on Corbyn?

    I know you will generally approve of the direction of his economic policy, but do you think he is the right man to begin breaking down neoliberalism?

    At best I see him as a gate keeper.

    1. Corbyn's economics are obviously an improvement on New Labour, but at the end of the day he is pro-mass immigration and pro-open borders, and on board with SJW nonsense.

    2. And to answer your question: maybe, he is the right man to begin to break down neoliberalism, but a viable left-wing party has to accept an end to open borders and mass immigration and ditch SJWism.

    3. How realistic is ditching SJWism and continuing to be successful? It seems to me that openly rejecting the gay and trans rights agenda, for example, would be suicidal.

    4. "the gay and trans rights agenda", I'm sorry but wtf are you talking about exactly 'Anonymous'?
      Is Sean Hannity posting in the comments section of this website now.
      Damn those human rights agenda people are at it again

    5. If "Anonymous" is a sensible leftist like me (but maybe he is not), he means humane treatment of gay and trans people by everyone, and sensible equity rights, but not extreme, divisive identity politics based on these identities.

    6. I'm personally starting to fear that he won't be competent enough. We have seen what the powers that be are capable of doing to those who don't agree with their world view. Albeit the UK is much more influential and independent compared to say Greece, or South American countries that have been attacked in the past. Still it is well within the realm of reason that if he was to overcome all odds and win an election that there will be forces both at home and abroad that would actively but discretely attempt to discredit him, and by proxy his ideas.

      This is made all the worse when paired with the fact that he will most likely be taking economic advice from New Keynesians. He will still be playing their games at the end of the day, and his seeming stubbornness to adapt, or concede parts of his agenda to further more important ones will eventually leave him politically constrained.
      When I think of this in combination with the mainstream media, who have already shown themselves to be wholly hostile to even a modicum of lasting and progressive change I'm almost inclined to let the Blairites take the wheel again to fall on their own sword, as opposed to risking the chance of Corbyn falling on his.

      Essentially I don't think Corbyn has the intellectual support (or the right kind) needed to lead such a radical change in political economy. As a whole the left is still stuck in identity politics, and happy to don neoliberal straightjackets (I think Dr Mitchell's recent pieces on MMT's contributions to economic thinking really highlights the latter). I just feel like this has to be done right, otherwise we will have another 1970s.

      I might just be reading the mood wrongly though, more and more people are waking up to neoliberalism, as its effects starts to reach the middle class. The world may be a very different place that is actually conducive to his policy but I've been a cynic from a young age and can't help but assume the worst and work from there.

  4. Why don't you do a live debate about these political interests of yours on YouTube?

    This used to be a primarily economics blog, now it seems to be more political and anti-SJW, anti-Feminism, anti-Multiculturalism, pro-Nuclear family, the consequentialist ethics of closed-borders etc.
    (You also changed the blog name)
    I disagree with most of what you say about politics, culture etc, but that is fine of course - differing opinions are worthwhile.

    So why don't you have a debate online with a prominent feminist? or someone that defends SJW politics? So you can really present your argument for why they are doing worse for society than better, or whatever it is that you feel certain about in this regard.

    As arguing on one's blog in the comments section can be a good place to trade ideas, but they are very safe areas, I find they are place where it is difficult for people to tackle each other's ideas without defenders of the blogger joining in also. For example, if someone wanted to really pick at your ethical system and determine what it permits, the rules that hold it in place, and how that fits in with a closed borders opinion, that could be explored further on a live online debate I think.

    1. 1.about arguing with LK everyone who wish to argue with LK welcome to argue in his twitter because as i believe LK value his privacy and he want to stay anonymous.

      2.if people want to argue with our position they are welcome to contact me even though english is not my native language i feel still happily debate this issues with anyone who like it.

      But i dont think that any of this famous youtubers would like to argue with me.

    2. AnonymousSeptember 1, 2016 at 8:18 AM

      (1) YouTube debates are overrated. Serious discussion is better on blogs, with arguments, data, references, and links, and

      (2) who with? the only challenge I've ever had was from an Alt Righter, with whom I engaged on Twitter, but who seems to have quickly lost interest.

    3. @Daniel Marmur
      1. Okay, if he would not like to do so then he certainly does not have to - but not sure he agrees with your characterisation of him (I have no idea).
      2. "our position", is why I think it is important for people to meet on level ground and discuss rather than in blog comments, because it could be either preaching to the choir or 200 vs 1.
      1. Live YouTube debates can be worthless experiences, but also can be very worthwhile. They allow for people to directly challenge eachother's ideas without censorship, filtering or content manipulation. Links can be left in the description, and research can be done beforehand, with notes and references at the ready - the proposition being debated can affect the degree of this though.
      They aren't perfect, but a big plus is that meaning can be conveyed a lot easier, as it can be difficult, at times, to transfer subtext and nuance through text alone. It seems a lot of comment back and forths in blogs is people 'not getting' one another.

      2. Who with?
      How about Feminist Kristi Winters, I'm sure you'd disagree with her and find lots to debate about (she debated Sargon of Akkad recently, spoiler alert: he was useless). I imagine you feel you have the content to challenge her, she accepts debate challenges.
      Jenni Goodchild (Sargon, and two of his friends, debated her, they didn't do very well), she has strong opinions and is very knowledgeable of feminist history and contemporary feminist practice.
      There is also LibertarianSocialistRants you could debate, he is supportive of SJWs and feminism.
      Or one of the easiest ones, debate Sam Seder from Majority Report (his Youtube show), he has lots of debates with people live on air, and he will happily debate you about SJWs and the 'regressive left'.

      @Daniel Marmur,
      Why not call into Majority Report with Sam Seder, and debate them about identity politics or SJWs and how they are worthless in your opinion. I'd watch (listen).

      Would be interesting to hear the exchange of ideas, and would be great to hear arguments picked apart, from either side, live.

      Also, Anarchopac is an anarcho-communist, that is steadily implementing aspects of Marxism into his worldview. He debated libertarian Stefan Molyneaux about ethics a few years back (and taught him ethics in the process). He'd be a good one, he's an SJW-supporting, feminist-supporting, Marxism-supporting, Anarcho-communism-supporting, very knowledgeable of leftist history, and very skilled in philosphy... he'd be perfect for you guys to debate about the ethics of closing borders and what you may believe to be the ethical disaster that is multiculturalism, or the ethical problems you may have with fighting for social justice or the practice of doing so. He would take a very very strong opposing position, and he's especially interesting because he has an acute sense for logical fallacies, and a powerful ability to breakdown ethical ideas. So could be super interesting - I'd get my popcorn out.


    4. Debate Bob Murphy.

      Sorry, that's the sadist in me peeking through.

    5. Anonymous

      1.First of all nobody really know about me much to accept my

      2.i am not into debating feminists i dont know much about the history of feminist movement anyway and i am not into debating ethics as well.

      Since I am not concerned with ethics and moral per se for example i dont care much about proving why close border is more enlighted or ethical position than lets say open borders.

      I am interested to speak about what are the consequences of open border policy on the average citizen of the country and if its desrieable or not.

    6. Anonymous@September 1, 2016 at 2:53 PM

      (1) I've looked at Anarchopac. My thoughts on one video here:

      (2) as to such YouTube debates, I wouldn't waste my time pestering people. If they have read the blog and show signs of understanding it, and invite me to debate, I would consider it.

    7. !-!-!
      (putting this here so you know its me - as my name is 'anonymous')

      @Daniel Murmur
      1. Yes, true. But you can call into Sam Seder's show and debate him on air. You can even do so anonymously. So feel free to do that and debate identity politics with him.
      2. Far enough. In regard to ethics, if you were a rule utilitarian - you may be morally obligated to adopt an open borders policy even if you didn't like it. So your policy recommendation would be influenced by that. The consequences are significant too, just say you had plenty of evidence of migrant males around a given age, from a certain culture, being a disruption. Yet you had no evidence for the women or children. Based on your moral standing you may feel obligated to open borders to them. Or just say in aggregate crime and terrorism was going down, yet migration of women and/or children and/or men and/or disabled migrants etc was going up - once again the consequences could affect your moral obligations.

    8. @LK,
      1. Cool. I read the post just then, didn't seem much different to your usual posts - not that it had to be different.
      2. If they "show signs of understanding it", that could mean if they show signs of agreeing with you.
      Maybe that's not what you mean at all. As a feminist supporting, SJW supporting, LGBTQI supporting, postmodernism supporting, identity politics supporting, marxism supporting individual can surely understand you blog but will just disagree with it. That's why I posted people that would understand your website, but just completely disagree with it. I posted people that tend to confidently argue against such opinions, and are skilled at meeting such challenges.

      If you don't want to then you don't have to, but was just letting you know that the option to really discuss this stuff deeply with people that know exactly why they believe what they believe and are very experienced with challenging others' opinions is there.
      Don't do it if you don't want to.

    9. Anonymous

      first of all i am not utilitarian and actually i dont think that the best thing for society is trying to maxmize its pleasure or something like that.

      second of course consequences can change my point of view on a policy i am not denying that actually i am proud of that.

      but if lets assume we are speaking about open vs close borders for example (if its related to cultural issues of immigration and not economic ones ) the issues that i am concerned is the ability of immigrants to left their old culture and values and embrace the new culture and values and identity of the host country.

      for me its the most important issue and according to this issue i would choose which immigration policy in my opinion is the best for the country (if we are speaknig about cultural aspects of immigration because there is also economical aspects).

      and why i am concerned so much about the culture of the immigrants and their capability to be assimiliated?

      because as far as i can see people tend to live with people which have the same culture and values like themself for example even if you will take the average pc culture SJW post modernist democratic party voter.

      most likely he/she will live in homogeneous (so in their private life diversity is not the biggest strength yeah?) segregated neighbourhood if not by ethnicity then definitely by economic class.

      and if you force 2 separate culturally groups to live together you are most likely will get a serious conflict.

      (if its in the world like in cyprus like in israel like in serbia and kosovo)

      and even inside democratic liberal countries like usa where people no matter how mcuh they are speaking about diversity as a bless.

      basically continue to segregate themselves as hard as they can economically and ethinically.

    10. !-!-!
      @Daniel Marmur

      I wasn’t here to challenge your ideas on this stuff so much as I was here to see if any of you were interested in pitting these ideas against those that know how to argue against them.
      As I said before, feel free to call into Majority Report with Sam Seder, anyone can call in and debate live.

      In regard to what you said I believe an interesting debate could start.

      - Most open borders urges come from people’s desires to do what they consider to be the right thing i.e moral considerations.
      I don’t believe that can be ignored, at least not so easily. So a moral debate may be required.

      - Your concerned about people’s ability to embrace new cultures, but surely that can’t be the only concern, as SJW culture is new and becoming mainstream yet you don’t embrace it based on your principles. These principles may be moral in nature, but either way it is that sort of extraction of underlying principles that I value in debates.

      - You based your reasoning for your concerns it seems on the utility of the domestic population (“because as far as i can see people tend to live with people which have the same culture…”), which feels somewhat utilitarian. Though your concerns may not be moral, they may just be a passionate preferences you have to maintain a certain degree of peace with clashing values, a similar aim for SJWs when they recommend ‘safe spaces’ on a college campus.
      Israel and Serbia is one thing, but granting more work Visas to Australians is another thing.
      Do you have irrefutable evidence that migrant women and children are destroying the way of life? Causing surges in crime?
      It seems in the UK, Australia and the U.S, crime is trending down.
      And worldwide terrorism is trending down.

      These are the ideas I want to see debated. Blogs are great but I seem them as ‘safe spaces’ often, but seeing someone pull apart an opponent’s argument live is another thing. That really is something to behold.

    11. !-!-!
      It's important to have ideas that can actually be falsified. When someone debates live, you can see whether they will just scream because they believe something based on their own faith, or they believe it based on irrefutable evidence or the evidence is the best explanation or it just makes so much sense.
      The proposition: SJWs are destroying the world and ruining society.
      Or the proposition: Open borders policies are making the world a more dangerous and less communal place.

      If there is irrefutable evidence of that, or it just makes so much sense to believe that, then one really should believe it, but if not, they should stifle their desires to turn such a thing into a conviction.
      One would have to look at reliable data and show a strong correlation between open borders and the best measures of world progress etc. And argue the causation.
      Hopefully you see what I mean.

    12. this comment divided into 2 comments because of the size i am sorry for that

      now in the end of the 2 comment i will have a serious question for you.

      Nobody spoke about crime and terror.

      I just told you that even this SJW warriors want to live together only with people which share the same values and culture otherwise they will not live in segregated neighbourhoods and in this case they will not check the racial demographics of the schools in the area before sending their children study there.

      (i actually know so called sjw which check schools if they are white enough for their kids interesting why?).

      Also why people in europe concerned with immigration from muslim countries? Because big proportion of muslim immigrants are living in muslim ghettos for generations and have no desire and motive to integrate into the general society and have no intentions to be assimilated into the host country culture so naturally people start to be scared from other people which have different culture and set of values while this immigrants not necessery committed to pc culture multiculturism and tolerance of the host culture for example russia arab countries and latin america never had any strong post modernist left cultural movements to teach them love diversity and respect the culture of the other and this societies are still largely politicallyincorrect and intolerant toward other cultures and values.

      So of course its creating serious tension and problems with the host population and its creating backlash anti immigration movements
      In europe and in usa.

    13. articles about how mexicans dont assimiliate much in the u.s

      about the segregated muslim communities in europe

      now i mentioned serbia cyprus israel and i wrote so much about the problems with assimiliation to show you how this problem is not just strange passion of daniel marmor for cultural unity actually i showed you in this long post that is a desire which important for most people in the world including many SJW (even if they are not ready to admit to themself) to live in a community which share the same values and culture like themself.

      now anonymous the important question what we should do about it?

      for example wise immigration policy like the one in canada or australia which based on the skills of the people are helping them to integrate since they have to integrate themself quickly in order to get well paid job and of course their numbers are limited as well so they cannot develop self sufficent community which will give them the conditions to live relatievely comfortable live without the need to assimiliate into the host country culture.

      but if you are supporting open borders its clearly a different case.

      and here is a big question (if we are speaking about immigration from cultural side only).

      how will you able to assimiliate all the immigrants into host country culture while keeping your country as a liberal democratic country with open border policy?

      or how you will able to resist this immigrants from imposing their culture and values on you?

      with your SJW values if we assume there is open border and the immigrants dont value PC culture and multiculturism in the same way as western europeans/americans do?

      because i still cant find any valid SJW answer to this question, maybe you will give me one?

      because if not i prefer to live in a western liberal democracy with managed borders policy instead of vice versa.

    14. !-!-!
      Thanks Daniel.
      I understand what you are saying.

      I see a bit of a straw man going on…maybe?
      No SJW would like to see an open borders policy of the kind you may be thinking of - where anyone walks through the door. Otherwise they wouldn’t be lobbying (and succeeding) to stop a few notable Pick Up Artists ( that recorded themselves pushing women’s heads against their crotches at clubs, and were also kind of fine with rape if they could get away with it (
      Obviously, SJWs were fighting to stop that kind of thing entering the country, while the Sargon of Akkad’s of the world were smirking. Now, it may not be quite so consistent of people to ban such an individual from entering a country, while allowing other horrific individuals to enter, but nonetheless there was no open borders for these individuals and many others. Australia just straight up cancels Visas if you promote any sort of sexual violence to masses etc.
      All the SJWs I know are for easier paths to immigration, as opposed to ‘anyone can just walk in’. Visas easier to get to the U.S just say, rather than the nightmare process it can be.

      A lot of it is to do with moral considerations.
      If there are women and children that are being incinerated in another country why not house some capacity of them?
      (the reason I will always say ‘women’ and ‘children’ is to avoid statistics being thrown at me about migrant related crime, as they disproportionately involve men)

      Not sure, why we would privilege domestic population over foreign population, maybe to some extent but I prefer to view people in a more person-neutral manner - of course to some extent I don’t but I move toward that as much as possible.

      I’m under the impression you believe SJW culture has affected our society, largely for the worst - maybe I’m totally wrong there.
      But an interesting thing to consider is. You are worried about a society that has to live uncomfortably with values of others that they disagree with strongly, then why support democracy? As democracy will be a path to more SJW policy (more immigration etc) particularly if that is what every facet of society is infected with (if you believe that). So, why not support a dictator that holds your views and values only?

      “how will you able to assimiliate all the immigrants into host country culture while keeping your country as a liberal democratic country with open border policy?”

      I guess you mean, how will we CONTINUE to be able to do so and CONTINUE to maintain a liberal democratic culture, because immigration is probably the only reason you are where you are today. So I imagine the burden of proof may be on you to show that we can’t in the long-run, or at least if that burden doesn’t apply to you I would think that we can figure it out and there’s no reason to think that local discrepancies in our liberal democracies would apply to the aggregate.

      Wrote this while on the move. Sorry, let me know if I missed any response to a particular question you had or thing you wanted to know.

    15. quote:A lot of it is to do with moral considerations.
      If there are women and children that are being incinerated in another country why not house some capacity of them?
      (the reason I will always say ‘women’ and ‘children’ is to avoid statistics being thrown at me about migrant related crime, as they disproportionately involve men)

      answer:i am not showing you statistics of crimes made by immigrants or whatever so you really can stop saying women and children all the time since i am not the kind of person which will try to .

      quote:Not sure, why we would privilege domestic population over foreign population, maybe to some extent but I prefer to view people in a more person-neutral manner - of course to some extent I don’t but I move toward that as much as possible.

      answer:because i am concerned about domestic population if i am thinking about a country and i should represent its best interests i should represent the interest of the citizens of this country (aka domestic population) thats why when you are saying domestic population privilage i am saying domestic population rights since the most important priority of the government of the country should be to concern about the welfare of its citizens.

      quote:So, why not support a dictator that holds your views and values only?

      answer: i dont want to support dictators and i personaly value democracy and democratic liberal values so if i have to decide between open border and maintaining a liberal western democracy i prefer the latter.

      quote:the burden of proof to be on you to show that we can’t in the long-run,

      answer:ok lets check the record of countries which had 2 significant populations with entirly different cultures.

      after world war 1 forced transfer occured between greeks and turks.

      war between turks and greeks on cyprus and division of the island for 2 countries

      Israel transfer of arabs in the middle of the 1947-1949 war of israeli independence

      transfer of jews from the arab countries to israel

      division of india into 2 countries one muslim pushti and one hindi

      and forced transfer of populations between the new founded countries

      the wars in former yugoslavia which been about ethnic cleansing.

      and of course we can add rhodezia and south africa as examples of 2 eniterly different cultures living in the same country

      and the civil war in rhodesia

      and the genocide and systematic discrimnation of whites after they lost power in rhodesia.

      now Anonymous i basically showed you a repetitve pattern when we are speaking about 2 really different cultures which is living in the same country.

      and this pattern is wars forced transfer of populations opressions and repressions.

      so now the burden of proof is on you specialy if you take into consideration that most of the third world nations dont have (and never had) any strong left multicultural pc movements to make their nationals to apperciate values like politically correctness multiculturism while rejecting values like tribalism and ethnic sooidarity which in turn influence immigrants chance for assimilation and its perception of the host culture.

    16. @Daniel Murmur
      “i am concerned about domestic population if i am thinking about a country and i should represent its best interests…when you are saying domestic population privilage i am saying domestic population rights since the most important priority of the government of the country should be to concern about the welfare of its citizens.”

      Sure and the difference here is that for many, including myself, there is a moral obligation felt to help others despite nationalistic constructs. There’s lots that governments do in the name of nationalism and state exceptionalism that I’m sure you’d disagree with:

      Once again, in a liberal democracy, if the government is representing the interests of its population and those interests are SJW concerns (which are growing I’m sure you believe) - all of a sudden you don’t agree with the interests of the domestic population or government’s policies, and don’t want to give such interests a priority - so its not necessarily the interests of the domestic population that you are concerned with - otherwise you’d support the (presumably) growing SJW creed.
      There is a moral principle you are upholding here, it is in alignment with the values that you support, it is clearly at play here, and I don’t believe that you are recognizing it.

    17. ...
      “i dont want to support dictators and i personaly value democracy”

      Fair enough. Then you’ll have to deal with your population increasingly supporting SJW values, and those becoming the interests of the domestic population. Which it seems, specifically in regard to the interests of the domestic population, that is something you want to privilege.

      “ok lets check the record of countries which had 2 significant populations with entirly different cultures.”

      It’s a nice long list you have there.
      This list though is like somebody trying to show me on their computer how technology has done nothing (or little) to improve people’s lives - its just an almost vertical, almost infinite, uphill sprint.

      It seems pointless to me to ask you to look at planet Earth, but I’ll ask you to do so.

      Every nation on Earth has involved the clash and eventual intermingling of significantly different cultures. Just read the history of every nation on Earth, start with the U.S and go from there.
      Now, ask if the standard of living improved in these nations or not. Ask if they would’ve been better if they just stayed apart - and then give me evidence for that.
      It seems to me that what you are pointing out are instances when it didn’t work. Yep, I agree it didn’t work in those instances.

      The U.S is better because blacks and whites intermingle, its not worse.
      Australia is better because Aborigines and whites intermingle, its not worse.
      South Africa is better because blacks and whites intermingle, its not worse.

      Its like trying to point out that families don’t work because you have 20 examples in which there were family fights, murders, sexual abuse, etc.
      Why not look back previous to the last 100 years, and tell me whether the standard of living in Europe has improved since then or not. Despite all the significantly different cultures in Europe (any history book will tell you about it) things are far better now than they were - if you are going to suggest that they would’ve been better, I’d love to see a powerful argument for that. Now just consider the U.S, Africa, Australia, etc…the whole Earth.

      I’m not deny that there can be short-term issues, I’m saying that if I’m going to go with a general policy it will be one that is more welcoming - not just an open door, but far more open than the proposed by the social conservativism of the old left.

      Now I know you don’t like me mentioning women and children constantly, hehe.
      But I want you to understand the importance of the question…is it women and/or children that can’t fit in easily? or is it men?
      It would seem to me children will certainly fit-in the easiest - that’s obvious, but what about women, do you think they will fit-in easier than men?
      Because that will affect who you would open the borders to it seems.
      I’m sure children with their ability to fit-in so easily are essentially free to flow in right? If that’s the only thing holding you back. It seems to me that any issues you recognise to do with culture clashes disproportionately involve men…do they not? So let in the women right?

  5. Or LK could just ignore these ridiculous requests...

    I have never met the guy, but I imagine he has better things to do with his time than facepalming his way through a Skype conversation with some Third Wave radicals trying to convince him that two plus two makes five, and that open borders really are 'racist'.

    1. Yes, I imagine most of these proposed debates would a long session of *facepalms*.

    2. !-!-!
      ...Or LK could just go with the requests if he feels up to it. Although he doesn't have to of course.

      In terms of facepalming.
      The people I recommended often make their opponent's fans facepalm at their representative's inability to form retorts and subsequent argument responses.

      One of the most interesting aspects of a debate like that is there is no soft cushioning below, so rants don't do too much - as there is no (preached to) choir to catch someone. If the debate was concerning a third wave radical issue, and you were debating someone with an acute ability to expose logical fallacies, you would need to present a strong argument as to why it is ethical, socially, etc not recommended to and truly horrific to, just say, be an SJW.