The new American right is worthless and is a failure by its own design.

Free speech is not a luxury. Free speech is a fundamental mechanism that allows you to see what is going on in the world, and which allows you to hold people in power accountable to a far greater extent than just voting once every four years ever will. Abandon that and you might as well pack it all up.

You might as well say that having eyes is a luxury and that we should tear them out.

If the right supported the first amendment like they support the second, the world would have been in a much better place right now.

@KittyGremlin As for the right, people who are used to left wing hysteria and disillusioned by twenty years of american war mongering are not going to support the Russia-Ukraine war or the left wing mania connected to it. That isn't either contrarian or inconsistent, it's a pretty obvious result of the last two decades of american politics.
Freedom of speech, more than literally anything else, is essential to the values of Western Civilization. Having a functioning brain isn't a luxury either, probably a curse at the rate things are going. I suppose it's easier to just believe whatever the politicians, TV talking heads, and social media prostitutes tell you to than it is to be critical and hold people accountable when they mislead you or at worst, bring the world closer to goddamn nuclear annihilation.

But at least we won't have to worry about mean tweets.
 
I'd ask is how exactly would you define the New Right. It's clear enough that people like Mitt Romney and Chris Christie aren't a part of it but what of people like Pence, De Santis, or even Trump himself? Are they a part of it or are we simply talking about Fuentes and his cronies?
I could be wrong about this but the ideologies that most of the modern right seems to fall under is classical liberalism right-wing libertarianism and right-wing populism and the ideologies that the old right seems to fall under is the centre right neo conservatism and paleo conservatism again i could be worng about this so take this comment with a grain of salt
 
Freedom of speech, more than literally anything else, is essential to the values of Western Civilization. Having a functioning brain isn't a luxury either, probably a curse at the rate things are going. I suppose it's easier to just believe whatever the politicians, TV talking heads, and social media prostitutes tell you to than it is to be critical and hold people accountable when they mislead you or at worst, bring the world closer to goddamn nuclear annihilation.

But at least we won't have to worry about mean tweets.

"""Freedom of speech""" = carrying water for those degenerates you name who are destroying our culture. Meanwhile they just keep going, they don't feel any need to defend "freedom of speech" for you. Sounds like a great strategy.
 
"""Freedom of speech""" = carrying water for those degenerates you name who are destroying our culture. Meanwhile they just keep going, they don't feel any need to defend "freedom of speech" for you. Sounds like a great strategy.
I don't give a shit if they defend freedom of speech for me or not, I'm still going to say what I want regardless. Because I don't give a shit, I have nothing to lose. Besides, in theory bad ideas are supposed to die out and be dropped over time in a society where speech is largely unregulated. It's called the marketplace of ideas for a reason.

So what's your strategy, jail or kill everyone who speaks out in favor of anything that isn't right wing "Christian Nation" garbage? That's almost as bad as anything the far left can offer.

To be fair though, it is ironic that groups who want to destroy freedom of speech for anyone who isn't them are rather dependent on it to spread their own ideas. Yeah, American style "freedom of speech" is not perfect, but it's the worst option, except for all the others.
 
I don't give a shit if they defend freedom of speech for me or not, I'm still going to say what I want regardless. Because I don't give a shit, I have nothing to lose. Besides, in theory bad ideas are supposed to die out and be dropped over time in a society where speech is largely unregulated. It's called the marketplace of ideas for a reason.

So what's your strategy, jail or kill everyone who speaks out in favor of anything that isn't right wing "Christian Nation" garbage? That's almost as bad as anything the far left can offer.

To be fair though, it is ironic that groups who want to destroy freedom of speech for anyone who isn't them are rather dependent on it to spread their own ideas. Yeah, American style "freedom of speech" is not perfect, but it's the worst option, except for all the others.

It's funny how fast anyone who doesn't do the whole freeze peach cope is immediately assumed to want gas chambers and firing squads, when the left has shit all over your freeze peach so thoroughly already without having to resort to anything like that.

Anyways, which of these would you pick, if forced to choose:

1) Your heckin' freeze peach is protected, technically, in the sense that the government won't put you in jail for saying nigger, but the society around you is completely destroyed beyond recognition
OR
2) There is no heckin' freeze peach, but society is well-ordered and functional

Which of these is a higher priority for you?
 
>In light of recent events, I've noticed that many American right wingers are mindless contrarians
lol no, you got assmad because a bunch of people aren't part of your gay dead nigger country's fan club, whether they be right or left.
>that is MORE authoritarian by any metric
Most of the people you're bitching about, myself included, are not liberals.
>you just pissed off a pile of freshman university students and driven away many reasonable people from right wing thought
:story: Hey, at least you still have based black man on your side.
 
It's funny how fast anyone who doesn't do the whole freeze peach cope is immediately assumed to want gas chambers and firing squads, when the left has shit all over your freeze peach so thoroughly already without having to resort to anything like that.

Anyways, which of these would you pick, if forced to choose:

1) Your heckin' freeze peach is protected, technically, in the sense that the government won't put you in jail for saying nigger, but the society around you is completely destroyed beyond recognition
OR
2) There is no heckin' freeze peach, but society is well-ordered and functional

Which of these is a higher priority for you?
The first one, because fuck whatever garbage ideology you're trying to push here. There's always someone trying to "destroy society" no matter what you try to take away, or actually succeed in taking. I thought a basic knowledge of history and some critical thinking might have changed that but I suppose there are still exceptions floating around. Plus I don't think it's freedom of speech that is destroying society anyway, that's stupid. And to be fair, I'm fairly sure the Left wants gas chambers and firing squads for anyone who won't suck their cocks but are generally smart enough to not say the quiet part out loud. Not to mention if you do express certain ideas, who's to say you won't be next on the chopping block? It's not like national governments don't change their minds on a whim and decide to go beyond their "normal" limits.

People like you deserve to be deported to China and not allowed back.
 
The first one, because fuck whatever garbage ideology you're trying to push here. There's always someone trying to "destroy society" no matter what you try to take away, or actually succeed in taking. I thought a basic knowledge of history and some critical thinking might have changed that but I suppose there are still exceptions floating around. Plus I don't think it's freedom of speech that is destroying society anyway, that's stupid. And to be fair, I'm fairly sure the Left wants gas chambers and firing squads for anyone who won't suck their cocks but are generally smart enough to not say the quiet part out loud. Not to mention if you do express certain ideas, who's to say you won't be next on the chopping block? It's not like national governments don't change their minds on a whim and decide to go beyond their "normal" limits.

People like you deserve to be deported to China and not allowed back.
>but are generally smart enough to not say the quiet part out loud
You know we're fast approaching the point where saying it out loud is going to be perfectly fine right? I'm sure you know what comes after that. Here's the thing, people who are against liberalism aren't arguing that liberal ideals aren't in fact ideal, the argument is that they're not unlike Communist ideals. It would be a complete utopia if it worked like intended, but in reality, it just ends up getting the common man enslaved.
 
people who are against liberalism aren't arguing that liberal ideals aren't in fact ideal, the argument is that they're not unlike Communist ideals.
Those people are mentally handicapped and should be laughed at, since communism and liberalism are opposites of each other. If you unironically think “libs = commies” you’re a single digit IQ mongoloid.
Not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to hold that opinion fyi, just saying I’m going to make fun of whoever actually holds it.
 
Those people are mentally handicapped and should be laughed at, since communism and liberalism are opposites of each other. If you unironically think “libs = commies” you’re a single digit IQ mongoloid.
Not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to hold that opinion fyi, just saying I’m going to make fun of whoever actually holds it.
>libs = commies
>I’m going to make fun of whoever actually holds it

lol, and I'm going to make fun of anyone who can't discern between someone saying two ideologies are identical and someone pointing out a common aspect between two ideologies.
 
>libs = commies
>I’m going to make fun of whoever actually holds it

lol, and I'm going to make fun of anyone who can't discern between someone saying two ideologies are identical and someone pointing out a common aspect between two ideologies.
>libs want gas chambers and firing squads for anyone who won't suck their cocks
Ok retard. Come back when you’ve learned what liberalism means.
 
In a perfect world free speech would be an essential right, even to our enemies. But we don't live in a perfect world, and you'd think seeing the last twenty years would be convincing enough.

They'll lobby for anti-cenorship and free speech when it benefits them, and it might even benefit you. But the fucking second they hold power they will clamp that boot down on your throat, and when you say "B-but free speech..." they won't care. You can't win a fight if you fight by the rules while the other side doesn't.

I don't like authoritarian style stuff, but at this point what choice is there? It's either play the game or lose.
 
maxresdefault (33).jpg
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Kiwi & Cow
The entire primise of OP is wrong. The people who were stanning for Putin online weren't right wing. Those are /pol/-type contrarians who don't give a rat's ass about America, the constitution or anything else and have more in common with commies than the people that actually go to the polls for Republicans. If you went and actually asked right leaning voters about the Ukraine issue, I doubt anyone would actually say anything positive about Russia. At most, you'd see people who say they don't want to get into a war over it, but that has more to do with post-Iraq war sentiments than anyone who actually gives a shit about Russia or Putin.
 
Last edited:
I don't give a s/hit if they defend freedom of speech for me or not, I'm still going to say what I want regardless. Because I don't give a shit, I have nothing to lose. Besides, in theory bad ideas are supposed to die out and be dropped over time in a society where speech is largely unregulated. It's called the marketplace of ideas for a reason.
That's what happens in an ideal society, which exists in the fantasy worlds inhabited by communists, libertarians, and people who believe democracy is a good political system. In the ACTUAL society, free speech belongs only to the powerful (which liberals and commies correctly point out). The government--or the mob, the corporation, etc.--picks and chooses who gets to talk, whose voice is amplified, and who gets silenced by "mistakes."

It's literally always been that way. Write an article about how black people shouldn't be slaves in the Antebellum South and watch as a mob burns your printing press. Write an article about how black people are just as flawed as white people in Current Year America and watch as a mob deplatforms you. You do not, and literally never will, have an actual right to free speech. The only free speech that really ever matters is that of powerful people and their pre-selected opinions.

And to be fair, I kind of like the pseudo-free speech we have now, I just wish my side was the one doing the censoring. There's a lot to be said about silencing bad ideas. We wouldn't have a lot of problems if we just censored them out of existence through the same manipulation they use against us.
>but are generally smart enough to not say the quiet part out loud
You know we're fast approaching the point where saying it out loud is going to be perfectly fine right? I'm sure you know what comes after that.
These past two years were probably the breaking point, when it at last became okay for elected politicians to say how much they hate you for your beliefs and support policies that by their own admission exist solely to inconvenience you and keep you out of society because you didn't take Big Pharma's newest, hottest drug. And that trickles down to the public where it's considered virtuous to demand that people be put in camps and stripped of all rights for opposing the trend of the day, or openly discuss the necessity of starting civil war in Russia and killing millions of people because Russians are inherently evil or whatever.
The entire primise of OP is wrong. The people who were stanning for Putin online weren't right wing. Those are /pol/-type contrarians who don't give a rat's ass about America, the constitution or anything else and have more in common with commies than the people that actually go to the polls for Republicans. If you went and actually asked right leaning voters about the Ukraine issue, I doubt anyone would actually say anything positive about Russia. At most, you'd see people who say they don't want to get into a war over it, but that has more to do with post-Iraq war sentiments than anyone who actually gives a shit about Russia or Putin.
Because your average right-leaning voter is a neocon boomer who's been temporarily persuaded into looking beyond the chains of niggercattledom by their mythical lord and savior, Donald Trump, who made it feel like that for once in their life, they weren't losing. Fox News worshippers are precisely why the American right of today is completely and utterly worthless.

If the American right had more in common with commies, they wouldn't keep losing.
 
>but are generally smart enough to not say the quiet part out loud
You know we're fast approaching the point where saying it out loud is going to be perfectly fine right? I'm sure you know what comes after that. Here's the thing, people who are against liberalism aren't arguing that liberal ideals aren't in fact ideal, the argument is that they're not unlike Communist ideals. It would be a complete utopia if it worked like intended, but in reality, it just ends up getting the common man enslaved.
I'm well aware of the fact that people buy into the Utopian idealist part of communism, everyone is equal, etc., but Karl Marx didn't really think too hard about how we get to communism, or at least he left stuff out or just plain didn't understand human nature.

And even worse, once they obtain power, those at the top never give it up and just turn communist societies into their own personal fiefdoms.

I still don't think people should be jailed for beliefs no matter how wrong they are. That is not who we are nor who we should be as a country.

>libs = commies
>I’m going to make fun of whoever actually holds it

lol, and I'm going to make fun of anyone who can't discern between someone saying two ideologies are identical and someone pointing out a common aspect between two ideologies.
There are people who exist who unironically believe that, although there are a few socialist types in the DNC. People in America think when AOC types mention it they're talking of the Red Army and @JosephStalin and gulags and stuff. A bit extreme but I understand where they're coming from. Unfortunately, those types tend to force their way in though, no matter what ideology they claim.
 
That remind me of an article then American Thinker posted about the agonizing death of Neoconservatism. However there might be some differences between the new American right and Neoconservatism.

April 15, 2022

The Slow, Agonizing Death of Neoconservatism​

By Francis P. Sempa

Matthew Continetti, writing in Commentary, credits leading neoconservatives, such as Irving Kristol and his son Bill Kristol, with "modernizing" conservatism so that the Republican Party — which neoconservatives reluctantly joined after they lost influence with the Democrat party — could suitably govern a modern democracy. And he laments the fact that since the rise of the Tea Party movement, neoconservatives have gradually lost influence with a populist-nationalist Republican Party. Leading neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and Jonah Goldberg (then at National Review) publicly opposed Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020. As a result, neoconservatism is now a movement without a political party.

The immediate causes of neoconservatism's decline in influence within the GOP were the twin wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, begun during the George W. Bush administration. Initially, most conservatives supported the war in Afghanistan, even while some questioned the need to invade Iraq. But Bush transformed those wars into a crusade for democracy, which is when many conservatives — including William F. Buckley, Jr. — got off the bandwagon. Neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz called the terrorist attacks of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, culminating on 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghan wars, "World War IV" in articles in Commentary that were later collected into a book with that title.

Podhoretz is a compelling writer, and his comparison of Bush's Global War on Terror to America's hot war against Nazi Germany and Japan and its Cold War against the Soviet Union convinced many that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were part of a larger existential conflict with radical Islam. And that is how Bush portrayed them in speech after speech and in formal national security documents. The result was twenty years of "endless wars," in which American blood was shed and American treasure was expended in a futile effort to democratize those two nations. Bush's greatest cheerleaders were David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, and other neoconservatives. When the futility of those wars became obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology, these neoconservatives continued to urge greater American military efforts.

In the end, the neoconservative crusade failed, but rather than learning the harsh lessons of their failures, they doubled down and found a new crusade: Ukraine. Neoconservatives are the most vociferous supporters of doing more to preserve Ukraine's independence, often invoking the "lessons of Munich" to justify risking war with Russia.
Neoconservatives first gained influence in the GOP during the Reagan administration when most of them were still Democrats. Many of the neoconservatives were "Jackson Democrats" — that's Henry "Scoop" Jackson, perhaps the country's leading Cold Warrior and one of the few leading Democrats who did not sit out the end of the Cold War in the 1970s and '80s. In 1980, fed up with the weakness of the Carter administration, many neoconservatives supported Ronald Reagan for president, and some of them joined the administration and to their great credit helped win the Cold War. (Scoop Jackson served on Reagan's transition team.)

After the Cold War ended, as Continetti notes in his article, fissures began developing within the conservative movement and the Republican Party. The issues that caused these fissures included immigration and foreign policy. And neoconservatives increasingly felt uncomfortable with the rise of populism and cultural nationalism, especially, Continetti writes, among "non-college-educated blue collar workers disaffected from the electoral process and contemptuous of political, business, social and cultural elites," including, one may add, neoconservative elites.​
 
The first one, because fuck whatever garbage ideology you're trying to push here. There's always someone trying to "destroy society" no matter what you try to take away, or actually succeed in taking. I thought a basic knowledge of history and some critical thinking might have changed that but I suppose there are still exceptions floating around. Plus I don't think it's freedom of speech that is destroying society anyway, that's stupid. And to be fair, I'm fairly sure the Left wants gas chambers and firing squads for anyone who won't suck their cocks but are generally smart enough to not say the quiet part out loud. Not to mention if you do express certain ideas, who's to say you won't be next on the chopping block? It's not like national governments don't change their minds on a whim and decide to go beyond their "normal" limits.

People like you deserve to be deported to China and not allowed back.

Oy vey, don't you support my heckin' FREEZE PEACH though?@! Why don't you support my right to say freeze peach is retarded? Are you saying you won't DEFEND TO THE DEATH my right to use my freeze peach to say freeze peach is stupid??
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Kiwi & Cow
There are people who exist who unironically believe that, although there are a few socialist types in the DNC. People in America think when AOC types mention it they're talking of the Red Army and @JosephStalin and gulags and stuff. A bit extreme but I understand where they're coming from. Unfortunately, those types tend to force their way in though, no matter what ideology they claim.
The people who claim to be liberal are often progressives instead (sadly) and infect everything they come near with their shameful commie mentality. I mean, how is cancel culture liberal? How is idpol liberal? Stifling whoever doesn’t dance to your tune is the exact opposite if you ask me.
But the modern/alt right isn’t much better. What does it even stand for? Everything it claims to love is expressed in its hatred for everything else. Take away the hate and what do you have? Nothing.

Modern politics is nothing but hate. And I hate it. The two sides differ only in what they hate: The new vs the old.
I still don't think people should be jailed for beliefs no matter how wrong they are. That is not who we are nor who we should be as a country.
Agreed. Free speech is indispensable for societies to function somewhat normally and for ideas to flourish. Just look at China.
 
Last edited:
Back