As long as more Eli Lily and Lockheed Martini type posts happen before it does, I am fine with this.
Forget 'And nothing of value was lost.'
I want a smoking crater where a social media company used to be and billions of lost market cap.
All of these people are our enemies, and I want to see as much infighting and mayhem as possible come of this falling out.
It's a rigged game and I don't want to play anymore.
I totally agree with the sentiment. I don't want to play either, but we need to, strategically speaking.
Forcing retreat through demoralization is the playbook our enemies are using.
Yes, the field is tipped and the game rigged for our loss. Voting has become a vital rear-guard action, which forces our enemies to spend resources maintaining their dominance. We will lose through fortification, but we cannot afford to let them take office unopposed.
They have to be bled for every victory they take to blunt their momentum.
Every liberal is a Bolshevik. They will cheat happily.
Paleo liberals actually had a sense of decorum about things-- the alinskyite 'rules for radicals' crowd gaining power as 'the new left' changed that for the worse. That's when neo-Marxist Bolshevism based on race and sex metastasized. Libs believe the right is morally evil, while the right only looks at the left as ill-informed.
The reality of the left's moral inversion is that the culture war has become a good vs. evil struggle, with the right getting traditional morality of all kinds ascribed onto it (regardless of how well that maps over reality.)
The fact is, we
buildbuilt these institutions. They've been stolen by subversives and we need to take them back.
FTFY, and agree with the first point.
Generationally, yes. Our side did, and still can build. We need to leverage that creative potential.
It's also worth pointing out that the academy was ceded by the right. We need to build and hold institutional power.
The problem I see is that, 'Taking them [the institutions/infrastructure] back' would require a counter-play to the left's "long-march through the institutions." So I ask:
-
Are you prepared to dedicate 30-40 years to pretending to be lefty to launch institutional counter insurgence, or are you advocating this path for others as a reasonable solution?
-
Do you believe we have 30-40 years, given current rates of convergence?
I suspect the answer to both is a hard 'no.'
If so, then we need to reckon with 'the grid' as an outsider.
I think we have to build outside it; arguably from the ground up, as Gab/Torba have. I don't see any other viable alternatives, given the threat Agenda 2030 represents, so it's important to look to Gab as an example of what needs to be paralleled in other spheres.
Maybe? The question would be how that even works:
-
With what funding/political backing?
-
What media would spread the word?
-
What courts would rule against the government fortifying elections?
NGOs operate at a high level and seem impossibly top-down considering the level of institutional convergence we're facing.
I know I've posted some pretty black pill stuff lately.
This is more about the way forward, Torba's written a blog post/email where he assumes national level elections will be fortified-- in keeping with my own feelings on the matter, and focuses on building from the grassroots a parallel structure which is low to the ground and vertically integrated to avoid tech and media monopoly influence. (ie, 'build your own' taken to its natural conclusion.)
What other seeds need to be sown? How does the Right prepare for a future where national level opposition is a certainty, and the overwhelming majority of civic institutions are converged and enemy held?
It isn't, really. But any of the other multinational organizations individually matters just as little. The question stands: who benefits?
When the nation is helmed by dual citizenship holders, who don't even pretend to act in that nation's interest, disregard and destroy that nation's institutions:
Who benefits?