Reminder on why the left wins and conservatives are born and bred to lose
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (118)
sorted by:
Machiavellian guy here, the fuck is wrong with you conservatives. You are facing an enemy that wants to corrupt your young, neuter you and then be forced to watch as they burn the legacy of your grandfathers to the ground.
You take any power by whatever means possible, if that means omitting things that can easily get missed but gets you kicked off a jury, do that. Screw principles, focus on the win and eradication of your enemy. Then when dust is settled, you can live with the regret of how you won but the knowledge you spared your children suffering in the hands of demons.
The American right have been subjected to a psyop going back to at least the 1960s, where '''''principled leaders''''' like William Buckley Jr. (founder of the National Review) and an infestation of neocons (literal 'ex'-Trotskyists - little wonder these people seem to have so little to say on the culture war in particular) have brainwashed them into thinking that the only real conservative principles are to die for Israel and to choke themselves on corporate boots. Everything else - religion, the preservation of American culture in any meaningful sense, etc. - is at best a secondary concern next to those priorities, and that's if they're allowed to enter the conversation at all.
Oh, and above all, it is critical that they conduct themselves with 'dignity' (ie. being a limp-wristed cuck) and play the role of 'graceful loser' when the libs inevitably kick them in the balls and achieve a victory by hook or by crook. Literally every bit of social progress since the '60s was unpopular at the beginning, the left had to get them done through the courts rather than at the ballot box: abortion, affirmative action, busing, school prayer, etc. And once set in stone, conservatives weren't supposed to do anything but meekly and strictly vocally protest against these things, because they're 'settled law' now - meanwhile of course the progs and their pets were free to riot, intrigue and rig systems in their favor until they got what they wanted.
Groups that actually wanted to fight Communism and take a stand for God, the Stars and Stripes, not allow the American nationality to get buried under a tsunami of immigrants, etc. like the John Birch Society were ruthlessly demonized and driven out of the public sphere by these asshats. The '''''principled stewards of real conservatism''''' rejoice in every defeat, both because they got new ways to grift and because they have nothing but contempt for their purported base, who they deride as ignorant hicks at best. Trump, I believe, is but the beginning of the American right - no, the American people, because leftists have made no secret of how much they hate the concept of Americans and the existence of the United States of America - finally starting to wake up and push against their restraints in a very long time (notably the Dobbs case that killed Roe v. Wade was literally the first right-wing victory in the culture war since the fucking 60s).
And cucks like the man described in Posobiec's tweet up there? They have no place in an angry, militant Right that's woken up to just how badly they've been lied to & betrayed for decades. I would actually be a little more forgiving of them if they were boomers rather than young'uns from the newer generations because those guys were subject to a constant propaganda campaign to neuter & atomize them without having any tools available to even begin to open their eyes until talk radio got going in the 1990s. But regardless, they're too weak to be useful in any regard other than being browbeaten into voting for the furthest-right candidates possible for as long as the fiction of electoral democracy can be maintained & made to serve the Right.
Erickson's presence feels entirely artificial, tbh. He left RedState around the time when Trump was starting to make waves and while he went all-in on NeverTrump, that didn't work out too well for him or his blogs at The Resurgent & The Bulwark - his former coworkers on RedState have been piling shit on him, calling the latter site 'The Bullwank', etc. and theirs definitely seems the more successful site by far. And obviously, influential paleocons like Tucker (at least once he gets whatever he's planning for Twitter off the ground, if he's not immediately crippled by the new WEF CEO) can blow whatever numbers he scrounges up out of the water any day.
Certainly I don't believe Erickson has anything resembling a natural audience, no more than the child rapists at the Lincoln Project do. The Buckleyite 'fusion' consensus is dead and there's precisely zero passion on the right for more of the failed old 'deepthroat corpos, bomb brown people for Raytheon, let immigrants undercut American workers and don't worry about losing cultural ground to degens because Jesus said to love the sinner' bullshit. The base isn't buying that anymore and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Erickson's audience these days are made up of the most cucked of boomers and cheerleaders from the left, same as the Lincoln Project.
go off king
The more you read from the JBS the more you see how shockingly correct they were about most things. The only things they were wrong about were predictions of a Racial Socialist state within the US, but only because it didn't form, not because there weren't Communists actively attempting to do it.
Even Goldwater mentioned that the JBS was aggressively making sure that all of their information was accurate and well cited.
JBS was right about damn near everything.
What did Buckley do?
It'd be easier to ask what didn't Buckley do. Basically all that which ailed American conservatism and neutered its effectiveness at withstanding & rolling back left-wing gains between Eisenhower and Trump can be traced back to him, either as an active proponent or at minimum as a figurehead.
Buckley set himself up as the gatekeeper of American conservatism through his ownership of the National Review & influence on other conservative organizations such as Young Americans for Freedom, a position which he used to lock out & demonize proto-paleocon groups like the John Birch Society as I have said. On the other hand, he got the neocon infestation going by inviting 'ex'-Trotskyists like James Burnham (a man whose Machiavellian idea about the emergence of a dominant managerial elite inspired the character of O'Brien in 1984, all Orwell was missing was Burnham's suggestion that such an elite continue to keep some democratic trappings like a token opposition and a 'controlled circulation of the élites' to better manage dissent...y'know, like what the uniparty has been doing for ages) to work for the National Review.
The creep of lolbertarian thought into the right, resulting in the joint promotion of social atomization, corporate worship and the capitulation of the levers of state power to the left, all with the inevitable consequence of the sixty-year losing streak in the culture war? Again Buckley's work, the 'fusion' he was responsible for in regards to the 'fusionist' trend which defined post-1950s American conservatism refers to him fusing conservatism with libertarianism and onboarding yet more 'ex'-Communists (this time supposedly libertarians) like Frank Meyer onto his platforms.
Israel worship to the detriment of any points of relevance to the American situation, or really anything else? Yet again, blame Buckley. He was a huge, huge philosemite, and the John Birch Society being dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism (even though they accepted sufficiently, consistently hard-right Jews into their ranks) because they dared note the connection between neo-Marxism & the huge number of Jews pushing its various strands (queer theory, the commie infestation of the civil rights movement, etc.) and because they supported a generally non-interventionist position in foreign affairs outside of rolling back Communism (meaning no dying for Israel) was what drove a rift between him & their leader Robert Welch, even before their final split. Buckley would also condemn Pat Buchanan on similar grounds.
Conservatism being liberalism driving the speed limit, essentially the manager of decline for the right's 'managed decline'? Buckley's own career and 'evolving' beliefs is an example of that. He went from opposing the civil rights movement to not only supporting desegregation, not only supporting integration, but also supporting affirmative action - his best friend & brother-in-law L. Brent Bozell meanwhile maintained a more consistent record, opposing him opposing desegregation but not drifting way off to the left (actually, he became a tradcath integralist willing to throw hands to combat abortionists, at which point Buckley thought he had gone the same way as the JBS). He was for wars abroad until they became unpopular, as was the case with Iraq. He quailed before gay critics and promoted the beginning stages of the slippery slope to today's hellscape. And so on, so forth.
Nine months after his death, his own son Christopher not only voted for Obama, but felt the need to publicly announce he did so in the pages of the National Review. Conservatives called him a traitor, of course. But in hindsight, considering all the 'contributions' Buckley had made to American conservatism, I don't believe it can be said that he betrayed his father at all (certainly Buckley himself thought he'd live to see the first black president and believed that was something to welcome) - he was merely carrying out the logical endpoint of his father's life's work.
And good riddance, because they were crazy people.
He diagnosed the managerial revolution and Machiavellianism. It doesn't mean he cheered it on. I've enjoyed Burnham's books very much, and they expose modern 'democracies' for what they are: phony democracies.
How does support for Israel hurt the right?
That is the same everywhere. You blame Buckley for it, but that assumes that things would be better with no Buckley. European countries had no Buckleys, and we may be even bigger shitholes.
It's funny how those same people now say they just hate Trump and would love 'old-style' Republicans like Romney and McCain.
I defy you to show me where JBS was wrong.
JBS more closely aligned with the values of regular Americans post-WW2 than William Buckley and National Review did. I guess don't react too much against subversives to maintain your culture or you're "cRaZy".
Maybe you're not intending to channel elitist politicians when they call half of America bigoted deplorables and wingnuts, but that's what you're saying.
Didn't they claim that Eisenhower was an agent of communism? It's just dumb. I don't think the average person who elected Eisenhower believed that. They were nutcases, and all the attempted (incorrect) rehabilitation of McCarthy isn't going to change that.
A lot of the retards still think they can take the high road and win. That's the problem. They don't understand the left is actually just evil.
You can't unplug sewage if you're afraid of getting dirty.
Yes so we should sacrifice our individual integrity to own the libs.
No. Never.
I refuse to play a game that can only be won by cheating.
You have no choice but to play the game. They will ensure that there is no place for you, and eventually you will stand alone and be steamrolled for it.
And playing a game by the 'rules' when the other side doesn't, is mental illness.
Then you will lose and be made to face the wall.
Enjoy compromising your way to train cars then.
The game is called "the game of life". And you're currently playing it. The only way to not play it is to engage in the Canadian healthcare system and MAID yourself.
You're playing. Your options are to play by your rules in your self-imposed challenge run, or play by the game's rules.
you don't even HAVE to screw principles, you just need to have not-retarded ones.
"no the jury is sacred i must be a robot to serve on it!!!" retarded nonsensical principle
"i am fighting actual demons and should not be restrained by their rules as if it were an honorable fight" good sensical principle
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."- Ephesians 6:12
Nothing about jury dude means you have to be ignorant about anything other than the facts. This dude is just retarded
They will never truly understand regret. They will delude themselves into thinking that they “won” because they never abandoned their “principles.”
I think a lot of people don't realize the war is already here and underway. They want so badly to believe they don't have to sacrifice anything or expend any energy and that everything will be fixed by someone else. Someone else who they pour their allegiance to and support for but they don't even know and have never met in person.
I'll say it every chance I get. Get involved, locally. Don't let carpetbaggers and pretenders rule you. I understand if you're not clean and don't have an aptitude to lead, not everyone does, but get to know someone who can.
"The ends justify the means" vs. "Welp, at least I still have the Constitution"
“Whelp, at least I wasn’t called a racist!”
Wow. I heard about that George Floyd juror. Silly to ask but did he ever get in trouble? Honestly Chauvin has a ton of evidence for an appeal
I guess he would have to appeal twice, because they went ahead and convicted him of the same thing over again in Federal court.
It’s insane because a new lawyer should be able to argue he got an unfair trial
I think what happens takes a long time post conviction. You go in and then maybe after a decade of custody they overturn your conviction.
More than twice, because he would need to appeal each count of murder, and he was found guilty of murdering the same person multiple times. Because that is a thing. It flies in the face of simple logic, but logic isn't allowed in clown world.
I keep being shocked by how America ignores ne bis in idem, which even the basketcase European justice system respects.
Blacks do that shit all the time. They will utterly refuse to vote against their own no matter the evidence.
I DONT CARE WHAT ANYBODY TELLS YALL CLEOPATRA WAS BLACK
and I DID have breakfast yesterday!
They'll even admit it. "Oh yeah, he did it. But I voted not guilty because reasons..."
The Conservative is an idiot though. The Constitution says the government must not limit your right to bear arms. State law defines what constitutes self-defense, which was the ACTUAL issue in that trial: did he have a STATE-LAW right to use arms the way he did under the circumstances. (Obviously, the answer was “yes.”) Plus, I’m sure millions of ding-dongs of all political stripes are certain they know how different trials should play out based on their “research,” but reading a few articles and tweets is nothing like being in court and having it all presented to you in one burst, and I mean ALL of it, not just what media outlets both (1) can find out and (2) want you to know about. You should never claim to know all the facts about a case if you’re only present as a potential juror, but of course the follow-on conclusion is the same as Posobiec makes, that you should not try to eliminate yourself as a juror on that basis. Same conclusion, different reasoning.
I would not claim to know shit except to know of the news headlines that everyone reads, because facts on the internet can be fake. You don't take that stuff to court with you. Even if you think you know something, it would have to be re-established at trial.
Precisely why I do not consider or call myself a conservative. Theirs is a failed ideology that has conserved nothing.
Don't be unfair. It conserved the profits of Goldman Sachs and Raytheon.
I've stopped using conservative and started using Restorationist, at least until I can figure out a word for it that is less awkward.
Revanchist is the word I found, but I dunno if it works as a brand. The point is we need something that denotes retaking the ground that has been lost, because Conservatism is just a movement of losing slowly while convincing yourself you're doing some good.
I like revanchist, but it probably won't appeal to people who aren't already on your side (at least in part).
What about dissident right?
You don't hate boomers enough
You think you do but you dont
honor lies in victory, nothing less.
progunners are mostly all bark and no bite
No harm, no foul. Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted, after all.
Cheating to win is faggy as fuck tho.
>painstakingly set up chess board
>make calculated first move
>your opponent throws the board on the ground
>pick up all the pieces
>set the board back up
>make your first move
>opponent throws the board on the ground again
>start picking up the pieces again
>everyone is laughing at you because you're earnestly trying to play chess with an actual retard
>you set the board back up
>because you
>have "principles"
the left are the real cheaters!
Two retards playing each other then, sounds like a fair match in the end.
Shame they don't aspire to go any higher but really the most important part is not to let either of them waste the time of people who know how to actually play the game.
I get it. But you still need to with honor. If you need to lie, cheat, and steal, then you're no better than the niggers, faggots, and kikes. Have fun with that.
You don't get anything for being the most principled corpse in the mass grave.
Yes, you do. Martyrdom is an express lane to the highest levels od heaven.
Striking a noble pose in defeat is fucking gay.
Clearly you're not a follower of Christ. If you were, you'd realize you just called Jesus Christ's passion fucking gay.
Christ cried out in agony, he didn't stand there spouting off about imaginary principles and ask for more money. Comparing the two is repulsive heresy.
Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
K
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
You are of your father, the devil, who is the father of lies.
K
Peter, those who live by the sword, die by the sword.
Got it.
If having pre-existing beliefs or any convictions at all constitutes "cheating" then "cheating" is a meaningless term.
Very clearly I'm referring to the BLM nigger that lied just to get a win. That's a LOSS in the eyes of God.
Faggots lie about their entire identity. Jews lie about everything. Niggers lie about all dey dindu.
False witness, right there in the 10 Commandments.
So, to cheat and win, is faggotry.
Beats getting pegged as a loser.
If you have to cheat to win, you haven't won. You've lost.
Cheating is degenerate. Win with honor.
I'd rather be a living cheater, than honorable fertilizer.
Okay.
Honor is a myth created by those who won.
When the English beat the French by having longbowmen just shoot their cavalry, it was blatant cheating in their standard rules of war.
When an American soldier shoots an insurgent charging at him with a machete, a gun versus a sword, he's blatantly cheating in the matchup.
If you're in a duel and wearing fullplate, and see your opponent wears nothing at all, you do not strip down to their level. And if the situation is reversed, you do not pridefully wear nothing, you try to find some fucking armor.
Not even close to a comparison. If you're defending your life with weapons, that's fine. But lying like a kike nigger in court, that's fucking faggotry.
By whom? Other men? Who the fuck cares? You should care about who God perceives you.
As a right-winger, your going to be held to a much higher level of scrutiny, so you can't lie or steal without yourself getting completely nailed. Don't give the enemy ammunition.
So what, unload your gun and give that to them instead?
Not evey judge is compromised, but they can't do anything if you don't give them some wiggle room. Just be smart about it, aim for omission or "misunderstanding" rather than provable falsehood, work in enough plausible deniability and keep your mouth shut, don't be a retard like the George Floyd activist and brag about it to your friends, ever, take it to your grave. At worst you'll be deemed ineligible for the jury like that, but most likely you'll be fine and be one of the rare ones able to actually be able to do something useful for a change.
Engage in subversion damnit.
Lies can get you violently dragged in court, and a Leftist DA or Judge is going to look for an excuse to "send a message". So that when you do actually violate the law, you're going to get your asshole ripped open with over-zealous prosecution.
Subversion practically requires lying, at least in intentions, not lying is either cooperation or direct antagonism.
If you're waiting for a 100% perfect chance to fall into your lap, you're just going to twiddle your thumbs as you get inescapably boxed in. We'd be better off if everyone took a guarded swing when you get a 90% chance like jury duty.
Like I said, stick to omitting things you're not directly questioned on and bending definitions and you're almost impossible to do anything to in a criminal court unless you stupidly confess to what you're doing, keep your mouth shut and it's a low risk prospect. If your interrogation is thorough enough that you can't get by without omitting something you're directly questioned about, don't do it, answer the direct question honestly and call yourself unlucky as you become ineligible but otherwise suffer no consequences.
American, and more broadly Western, society currently heavily favors opportunism and being the first to try and take advantage of a situation. You probe with plausibly innocent transgressions, if they're on guard you'll just get a harmless warning and you can just keep testing others until someone's guard finally is down and you know you have the advantage before you start. Many lefty activists know this, that's why they often appear so limp wristed or spineless, they're always testing the water and are happy to back down from an unadvantageous confrontation before the stakes rise, so they can keep looking for someone with their back turned to strike at instead.
So start poking cracks and testing unguarded doors yourselves, it's the most advantageous strategy until something changes and society as a whole stops being so placid and starts being more vengeful.
Subversion does not require lying. It simply requires patience, persistence, and recognizing opportunities. I'm not saying that you wait for a 100% chance, I'm saying you don't lie, which could involve serious legal actions, and blowing up the trail.
To subvert you first have to pretend to agree with the people you intend to try and change from within. If you're not lying you're not subverting, you're just open opposition.
And I'm saying if you can lie smart, where there is negligible chance of serious repercussions, then do it. If you want them to wait until there's no chance of repercussions at all, that would be what I consider waiting for a 100% chance.
That's just not true: you don't have to lie to subvert. You can just agree on specific instances without ever stating your intent to change a larger structure or outcome, nor do you have have to point any of that out. In fact, the most effective subversion is when you don't lie, you never lie, and your opponent comes to your position and takes the action for you without ever feeling that they have been subverted.
Perfect subversion is effectively conversion. Almost perfect subversion is persuasion. And good subversion is to appear as an honorable and respectable alternative. Poor subversion is simple deception. The worst form of subversion is gaslighting.
The first mistake would be letting them know you're a right winger. I'm sure it can be figured out, but make them know you.
Hi I'm Max P. My pronouns are bullet/time.
This is also true. This is why the Left has their own distinct vocabulary. It's the "danger hair" of rhetorical signalling.
I call those shibboleths.
All he had to do was say nothing. If the prosecutor doesn't ask, don't answer.
Prosecutors are typically going to ask these things.
They didn't ask this retard to recuse himself. He did that on his own.
Insofar as juries are concerned, if he's not a law student or attorney then I'm all for doing whatever to get in the jury box.
To your larger point, I think any right-winger who gets under the cross-hairs of the left can probably assume they'll be unpersoned regardless.
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
(Though I do see your point.)
Sure, but even the Left understands what bad optics looks like. This is perfectly demonstrated by Trotsky who the Left pretends was a peace-nik. He wasn't. He was in full support of terrorism and terror campaigns, he just didn't want random acts of terrorism that weren't co-ordinated as part of a larger effort.
There is a difference between charging into the barbed wire, and laying across the barbed wire so the platoon can move over you.