"the woke right"
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (99)
sorted by:
Even if everything he said were true, that the opposition to legal immigration is just just a group of White people trying to form their own WLM movement, and it isn't true, but even if it were it still wouldn't be wrong.
The idea that responding to an attack in kind is morally equivalent to the attacker is one of the sneakiest and most destructive lines of bullshit the Right ever got sold. Someone walks up behind you and punches you in the head, and as you turn to defend yourself one of these faggots steps in and say "hold on, I thought you were against punching people. Aren't you better than that?". The enemy is in their trench firing their rifles at you, and you're somehow the bad guy for firing yours back.
It has been concretely proven through multiple sources collected over decades that every other identity group except White people are actively organizing by race to pursue the interests of their race over others. Blacks do it, Hispanics do it, Jews do it, Asians do it, Middle Easterners do it, and on and on. The only group in the world that doesn't do it is White people. Everyone else already is, and they started it first, and they've been doing it for a long fucking time. I absolutely reject the premise that White people finally catching up and being the last to the party is somehow the wrong thing while literally everyone else on earth having been doing it for years was somehow fine.
Opposition to H1Bs and other forms of both illegal and legal immigration is not White people grouping up for their own interests and the expense of other races. But if it were, they'd have every fucking right to do it and are fools for not doing it.
The concept of the "moral victory" is another one of those sneaky and insidious lies meant to harm the person you're trying to sell it to. There are no moral victors, only actual victors. When the enemy acquires a bunch of machine guns, you get some too. Riding against them on horseback with swords sure is more honorable, but it's also going to ensure you lose. Then the enemy gets to write history and paint you as the villain, so you don't even get to have the memory of your 'moral victory'.
Racial in-group presence works. Everyone else wouldn't be doing it if it didn't. You can either adopt it and stand a fighting chance on an even battlefield, or be wiped out and get your 'moral victory', at least until the victors rewrite history and you're remembered as the villain even if the whole point of you not choosing an effective tactic was to be the good guy.
“Order of events” is the foundation of any sustainable moral framework. If you cannot respond to violence with violence, then you will reliably be destroyed by violent people. If defensive, “reactionary” violence is morally equivalent to unprompted aggressive violence, then all “good people” are destined for extinction. Killing in self-defense isn’t murder, and the only people who claim otherwise are anticipating your murder.
Really well said!
The next chain in logic here is that, if you want "good people" to exist, then you have to have people with the moral framework you laid out, and the people pushing against them are pushing for the extinction of "good people."
Not only is it right, it's necessary.
No, Order of Events which is just a different way of saying the NAP is half the foundation of all liberal frameworks. (The other half is the Tabula Rasa.) It is the basis of all victimhood grifts like the holocaust grift or slavery grift. Simply claim you are the injured party and then anything you do is now moral, like bombing churches and burning children alive.
Might Make Right is the basis of moral frameworks because that is how the universe works. It doesn't matter how distasteful you might find it, because ultimately the only laws are the ones that are impossible to violate, F=MA, F=G*(m1*m2)/r^2 etc. Any philosophy that does not align with the universe is incorrect and ultimately will fail.
Waiting to be the injured party means that eventually someone stronger than you will come along and remove your ability to retaliate in a singe action. And then the operating framework is back to Might Makes Right because what you believe doesn't matter, you've lost.
Compelling argument.
In addition, if this is true, then first-strike is equally as moral as defensive response, meaning that massacring anyone you don't like is never immoral since it's the same as hitting back. Defensive has to be "better" than offensive, or there's no reason to not be aggressive and jingoistic at all times. It would lead to quite a nightmare world.
It's part and parcel of ConInc crying "hypocrisy!" when the left refuses to attack their own. Attacking your enemy and refusing to attack your fellow is not hypocrisy. Conservatives completely lack a friend-enemy distinction. Leftists operate under nothing but.
While one side having a friend/enemy distinction and the other side not is certainly a major part, I think there is one more aspect at least that is at play here. And that is this deep-seated belief on the right that there is this nebulous mass of neutral third party observers who are watching the battle between right and left play out, and they will decide who they favor based on who appears to be the 'good guys'. They believe there is an observant audience to this battle and whoever can win over that audience will gain such a large mass of followers that the battle will be over and the one who got the audience on to their side will win by default. So the right is constantly trying to portray themselves as the noble and principled heroes fighting the good fight in the right way, betting everything on even if we constantly lose every single individual battle along the way, the manner in which we lose will eventually win over that audience and we'll win in the end because we were clearly the good guys.
It's utter hogwash of course, and absolutely nothing in history demonstrates that anything like this has ever been the case. Even if there were some third-party audience that hasn't chosen sides yet, history shows us that they can be won over simply through propaganda or handouts or fear of sticking out from the crowd. They're not choosing sides based on some esoteric moral stand, they're choosing sides for personal reasons like which one won't kill them, which one will give them more money, which one makes them feel better, and so forth. And that's if this audience is even paying attention enough to play a role in the battle. Which most of the time they're not. Hence the right's near fetish level obsession with 'moral victories' [read: real losses]. That somehow after enough Noble defeats and fighting the good fight no matter what, even if you lose, somehow in the end the universe will reward them with the final victory because they deserve it.
I agree with you on what you wrote. I would also add the observation that the left attacks those on the left who are to the right of them, keeping them from straying rightward. The right also attacks those on the right who are to the right of them, keeping them from straying rightward. Whether that's due to subversive reasons, I'll leave that to the judgment of the reader.
In prisons especially. You ever think about that?
Why are we on a battlefield in the first place? I was trying to live my life and pursue liberty and happiness.
Seriously, Euripides? Ya'll have lost track of the plot.