Get fucked, liberals. I'm looking at you, Sargon.
(twitter.com)
Comments (13)
sorted by:
Didn't Sargon just do a video like yesterday where he's in a debate with his team because he's in support of banning Islam and Communism, while his co-host was saying "we can't, think of the optics!"?
Wouldn't shock me. Pragmatism has filtered into Carl over the years as he and a lot of his viewers realised just how bad things are. In order to keep society free, you've no choice but to quash the ideologies of utopian lunatics who want to take freedom away.
I think he's actually on record calling the liberals of yesteryear "naive" for allowing Marxism to metastasize right under their noses. IE, if Sargon's current stance had been implemented in the 1960s, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Libnuts really can't make up their own minds.
Lockian government works if everyone behaves that way. But there are prominent people who have chosen a side/tribe against you and your values you better find out which side/tribe you belong to yourself and staunchly adhere to it.
"Have you even read Locke? He's against all kinds of collectivism." Libnuts in a nutshell.
So how much exactly did you read of The International Jew, the text which you described as "a memoir" and attested that "every word" of it is "all true"?
I'll bite OP.
My position is far further than Sargon's.
Right-wing authoritarianism has directly lead to Leftist authroritarianism everywhere it's tried because you fail to understand that Leftist subversion depends on taking keystone positions of power.
Every time you set-up a right-wing reactionary structure to protect you from Leftism, you fail because Leftist subvert that structure and use it as a weapon against you. Chile, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany. Hell, the Hapsburg Empire had some of the strongest reactionary establishment forces to hold back Leftism and the whole Hapsburg line as a dynastic power structure is fucking dead.
You keep thinking in linear terms, and right has a terrible time with this. You always hunker down or step back. You understand you're being attacked, but you don't actually know how to defeat your enemy.
Your enemy bases everything on piercing momentum to seize keystone positions of power, to operate from, until those position of power are destroyed... because they can't build anything.
This is a fundamental flaw in Leftist Authoritarianism because the proper tactic to defeat the Left is to not build a strong bulwark that will be inevitably undermined as a static defense. Static Defenses do not work permanently. They can't.
You must commit to a decentralized defense and "defeat-in-detail".
The way you defeat a piercing attack is to blunt it's momentum, then swarm and by encirclement. You can't do this from a collectivist, authoritarian, mindset. It can only be done by decentralized individuals seizing the initiative.
As I've said before, the pinnacle of military deployment is formless. Collectivism causes you to be an unthinking and well defined target for extermination. You "bunch up". The best case scenario is that you simply submit yourself to the first Leftist authoritarian who claims to be a rabid anti-Communist, while effectively supporting Leftist policies. The German Socialists did this, the National Socialists did this, Nixon did this, Fabian Socialists did this. It's always the same game because you keep falling for the same trick.
Leftists can't succeed if they are in perpetual conflict at every level of power forever. The same way an armed robber can't rob from a bank if the tellers, customers, and random people on the street are all concealed carrying weapons, and are prepared to get into a gunfight with them. Their system can't handle that because they don't build anything. They need to parasatize an already present power system and zombify it. Concentrations of power are high priority targets. It's the same reason why their's a gap in their political strategy regarding American states and school boards. They seized the keystone positions of power and assumed they won, because they think the right operates exactly as they do.
But the right doesn't, and shouldn't. Otherwise you make for an easy target.
There are many things this image takes as granted. 1) That there exists a boogieman threat out there to get you, 2) bivalency that the only two possible sides to take, 3) that this collective action will somehow be more successful.
As you accurately addressed (3), the collective right has done nothing more than acted as an anvil for the leftist hammer. The rights position shouldn't be consquentialists in the first place, but to defend it from "first principles". To do otherwise is to admit defeat from the start. If (2) were true, why don't the ethnos just join republicans team then? Or is there more more to it than that? It's ridiculous to say that someone else could dictate the peer group I am supposed to belong. Lastly, nowhere it is shown that (3) is somehow team effort of the enemy and just another group of individuals with same ideology.
So every aspect of this propaganda aimed at the simple minded is defeated with lightest scrutiny.
3 ) The right's position shouldn't be consequentialist, but it's political organizers and activists should be. The right should always be reigned in by principles.
2 ) The ethno-nats want to be in charge. That's all any collectivist really comes down to: individualists who are just lying. A true collectivist would behave very differently because they would accept that their place within the collective is always irrelevant to the betterment of the collective. You never see that because humans are innately built to be individualist. They are not designed to intentionally sacrifice themselves to "the greater good", and it genuinely hurts them if they do.
1 ) The funny part is, we all agree they are genuinely out to get us. That's the part that's the most true.
I can't decide if I think this is fucking hilarious or not.
Is there such a thing as collective individualists? So thinking for yourself but enforcing this value in a collective somehow, and at being hostile to collectivists as a collective of individualists? It seems contradictory, but I think that is what the Constitution was aiming for, it's just that it wasn't taught explicitly communicated this way.
We should have been enforcing the breaking up of minorities since the end of Jim Crow laws. If some group cannot self-segregate, no one should be able to, and any attempts to do so, especially in secret, should be punished by the law. Instead we only broke up the collectivism for one group of people only, while letting other groups organize themselves and live in their own cultures which increasingly hated on the dominant culture (not to mention in an ungrateful, under-appreciated way).