War End the GOP - Nigerian Bougie argues In order to save our democracy, we must not merely defeat the Republican Party.



There are two figures in the Republican Party who best represent the state of the GOP in the Trump era. The first, of course, is Donald Trump. The second is Roy Moore. By the time Moore defeated Jeff Sessions’s replacement, Luther Strange, in the Republican primary for Alabama’s special election in 2017, he had already been a minor celebrity on the right-wing fringe for nearly 20 years. He had been removed from the Alabama Supreme Court twice for refusing to comply with federal rulings. He regularly made statements disparaging Islam and homosexuality. He had been a proponent of the theory that Barack Obama had not been born in the United States and had led an organization that celebrated pro-Confederate holidays. True to form, Moore would go on to make comments suggesting an ambivalence about American slavery during his campaign—America was last great, he had said in response to a question at a rally that September, “when families were united—even though we had slavery, they cared for one another.”

In the months leading up to the election, the Republican National Committee seemed entirely willing to swallow that record and more to keep Sessions’s seat in the party’s hands. But that November, The Washington Post went public with startling allegations. Moore, a fervent public tribune of conservative family values, was credibly accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl and pursuing several other teenagers. This, obviously, was a bridge too far for the party. Quickly, the RNC pulled its money and field support from the campaign. “The allegations were obviously very concerning, and concerning to the degree that we pulled our resources,” committee chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel explained to conservative talk show host John Catsimatidis. “The Alabama voters are going to have to be the judge and jury on this.” Her uncle, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, was among the voices urging the party to abandon Moore. “Roy Moore in the U.S. Senate would be a stain on the GOP and on the nation,” he tweeted. “No vote, no majority is worth losing our honor, our integrity.” At a press conference earlier in the month, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called on Moore to step aside. “He’s obviously not fit to be in the United States Senate,” McConnell told reporters, “and we’ve looked at all the options to try to prevent that from happening.” By early December, Moore had few open supporters within the party infrastructure beyond the Alabama Republican Party, which had secured Moore’s place on the election ballot.

But it had also become clear by then that Moore, who had dismissed all calls to drop out, retained plenty of supporters within Alabama’s Republican electorate—voters who defiantly disbelieved The Washington Post’s reporting and were loyal enough that polls continued to show Moore in a dead heat or even ahead of Democratic challenger Doug Jones. In an interview just over a week before the election, McConnell declined to condemn Moore again. “I’m going to let the people of Alabama make the call,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. President Trump, less reticent, officially endorsed Moore by tweet the next day. “Democrats refusal to give even one vote for massive Tax Cuts,” he wrote, “is why we need Republican Roy Moore to win in Alabama.” In a statement afterward, the Moore campaign boasted that Trump had personally called to offer “enthusiastic support for Judge Moore’s candidacy.”

The inevitable followed. On December 4, 2017, the Republican National Committee endorsed a credibly accused child molester for U.S. Senate. Having decided his victory would be preferable to allowing a Democrat a partial and ultimately inconsequential term, the RNC resumed its financial support for the Moore campaign. In a column for USA Today, the conservative writer Jonah Goldberg stated the obvious. “The RNC pulled its support when they thought Moore could be forced from the race,” he wrote. “They renewed it when it was clear he lacked the decency to drop out. In other words, their real problem was with a potential loser, not a possible child molester.” In defense of its decision, the RNC issued a brief statement to the press: “The RNC is the political arm of the president and we support the President.”

The Moore saga feels as though it was an eternity ago, but the episode has taken on a new resonance in the wake of Trump’s impeachment. Over the past several months, leading Democrats in Congress, the Democratic presidential candidates, and pundits across the mainstream press have denounced the Republican Party’s defenses of the president, attacks on the credibility of impeachment witnesses, and attempts to undermine the impeachment process. In a representative op-ed for USA Today in December, California Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, admonished Republicans and urged responsible figures in the party to “stand up and be counted.” “Are they OK with this president’s undebatable abuse of power?” he asked. “Are they prepared for what America becomes if we accept it? Is this the conduct we want to be commonplace in our children’s America?”

A similarly beseeching New York Times column from the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Peter Wehner in September was titled, simply, “What’s the Matter With Republicans?” “Mr. Trump’s most recent abuse of power—pressuring the Ukrainian president to do his dirty work—is the latest link in a long chain of corruption,” he wrote. “If Republicans don’t break with the president now, after all he has done and all he is likely to do, they will pay a fearsome price generationally, demographically and, above all, morally.” Vox’s Ezra Klein, one of the loudest voices condemning Republicans’ unwillingness to hold Trump accountable, tweeted in November that the impeachment process had exposed much more than Trump’s willingness to abuse power. “I’m a broken record on this, but the impeachment process isn’t revealing what Trump did,” he wrote. “We already knew that. It’s revealing what the Republican Party will accept, and even defend.”

In truth, we knew that, too. As the RNC straightforwardly informed us during the Moore scandal, the Republican Party is the political arm of the president. Defending Trump’s effort to enlist a foreign power in the harassment of a political opponent has been an utterly trivial undertaking for a party not only willing to send an abuser of children to high office on Trump’s behalf, but also willing to sidestep and deny numerous allegations of abuse and rape against Trump himself.

The capacity of our political elites to be shocked anew by the Republican Party has been more shocking than anything Republicans have stooped to doing in the Trump era. It should be no surprise that a party willing to deny the reality of a climate crisis that imperils all civilization has given the presidency to a man who denied his black predecessor is an American. It is entirely logical that a party currently dismantling the right to vote has turned itself over to a man willing to undermine faith in the democratic process. Despite what the Democratic Party’s chosen rationale for impeachment has implied, the gravest offenses President Trump has committed against our country can be found not in the White House’s call logs but in the detention centers where the president has caged the children of migrant parents—children abused and traumatized in the service of a racist mythology Trump has crafted about the impact of immigration. The Republican Party has helped him promulgate it and stands ready to help him do worse, because Donald Trump, beyond holding office as a Republican president, embodies the very soul of the Republican Party.

Every single aspect of his administration has been foreshadowed not only by fringe figures within the GOP and voices in the conservative media, but also by the last Republican president—a man now embraced, sometimes literally, by liberal and moderate conservative figures decrying Trump’s conduct. Trump’s own rhetoric of division and exclusion was preceded by the 2004 reelection campaign for George W. Bush, which took advantage of homophobia to boost turnout from social conservatives. Before thousands of Puerto Ricans devastated by Hurricane Maria were forced by the Trump administration’s shoddy recovery effort to ask themselves whether they were really Americans after all, thousands of African Americans failed by the Bush administration’s relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina posed the same question to themselves. Trump’s intimations that the federal executive is above the law may well have been bolstered by the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance of the American people. Even Trump’s efforts to integrate his companies within the processes of the state were preceded by the Bush administration’s curious keenness for contracts with Halliburton, the company Vice President Dick Cheney ran before Bush took office.

The propaganda and misinformation campaigns that characterize what some have called a new post-truth era under Trump should, in fact, be quite familiar to those who remember the denialism that characterized defenses of the Iraq War and the hundreds of thousands of casualties it produced. The two Republicans who have occupied the White House in the first two decades of the new millennium have shared not only an address, but an enthusiasm for torture and war crimes, a zeal for using fear and the threat of terrorism to quash political dissent, and near-total support from the Republican political establishment.

In the years since the end of the Bush era, we have seen figures within the Republican Party denigrate African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, and gender and sexual minorities. We have seen the Republican Party repeatedly back cuts to critical social programs under the pretense of fiscal discipline only to pass giveaways to major corporations, the wealthy, and an already gluttonous military. The character of the GOP is not an open question. Even those who suggest otherwise know it—the American political establishment meets each fresh stain the GOP leaves on the American conscience not with genuine surprise, but with performances of disbelief. Impotent in the face of a party that defied all political convention and wisdom with its victory in the last election, and unwilling to reshape a political order that offers them sinecures, political elites have only indignation and repetition as recourse. Their pearls, too often clutched, have been crushed into a fine powder. The straw has flattened the camel.

It’s left to the rest of us to face the truth squarely: Donald Trump is not a departure from the values defining the Republican Party, but the culmination of its efforts to secure power in this country. The question before us is not how much more the Republican Party might be willing to tolerate from the president but how much more we are willing to tolerate from the Republican Party. The GOP, founded by a generation of extraordinary men more committed to human freedom and the ideals expressed by our founding documents than the Founders themselves, has had a strange and improbable history. Built in opposition to the institution of slavery, the Republican Party is now a reliable opponent of equality and a malignant force in American life—a cancer within a patient in denial about the nature and severity of her condition. It should be not only defeated but destroyed—vanquished from the American political scene with a finality that can only be assured not by electoral politics or structural reforms alone, but by a moral crusade.

This might seem a startling supposition to liberal strategists and commentators convinced the Republican Party is digging its own grave. Despite Trump’s victory in the 2016 election, numerous pieces a year are written predicting that the GOP, dependent as it is on old and white voters, is headed for an inexorable decline, given the demographic changes set to reshape the country in the coming decades. “The numbers simply do not lie,” Axios’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen wrote last summer. “America, as a whole, and swing states, in particular, are growing more diverse, more quickly. There is no way Republicans can change birth rates or curb this trend—and there’s not a single demographic megatrend that favors Republicans.”
 
Hmmmm, I can only guess the exact number, but yes, I'd say a large percentage of Democrat voters are as you describe more or less.

An "average" Democrat voter is becoming increasingly rare, the nuts are running the nuthouse of that party and anyone who isn't down with the insanity is probably not so quick to describe themselves as a Democrat as they used to be, if they aren't then they are surprisingly ok with the insanity.

This is anecdotal of course, but I've interacted with "average" Democrats online and none of them that I met really give a single shit about the radicals on the left, all they care about is "kids in cages" and their blind hatred of Trump, so even if they aren't "pro-the destruction of civilization and the mutilation of children, and the murder of the average American" they sure aren't upset about the ones who are.

Now in the interest of fairness, this is happening to the right as well, this extreme polarization is happening both left and right, I call it the "great coalescing" everyone is being forced into one of two camps, everything is increasingly one side or the other.

I'm not totally comfortable with everything I see happening on the right either, there's a rise of open racism and sexism on the right just like there's a rise of open anti-white racism and anti-Americanism on the left, everyone is saying "fuck it" and taking the gloves off.

I don't like it but I didn't start this fight and if I have to choose a side I'm going with the side that's at the end of the day pro-US, because this is fundamentally a battle over whether there's going to be USA as we know it, if any "average Democrats" don't realize they're on the side of destroying the US they're blind idiots that need to wake up.
This is the point I'm trying to make; you know there's a machine, but you're still trapped in it. Both sides are against "there being a USA". Extremists on the Left want to turn the US into an amorphous blob without any identity that goes against the ideals of the country, and extremists on the Right want to turn the US into a theocratic ethnostate that goes against the ideals of the country. Richard Spencer, Chris Cantwell, Vox Day and their like talk about "loving America", but their ideals would destroy it. The difference is just the flavor of the same underlying principle, and (maddiningly-enough to me) there are people like you who see this happening, recognize it for what it is, and decide to keep doing it anyways. You might think that you're riding a tiger and those of us who walk away from the whole mess and want humans to love each other and treat each other like human beings instead of descending into a genocidal frenzy of tribalism are going to be destroyed; and if we are, so be it. But you are going to be destroyed too; just slightly later. Once the enemies run out, Moloch demands the blood of his own children, and those close to him are happy to oblige. When the Stalinists won, they started purging the moderates. When the Nazis won, they started purging the moderates. And when whatever side that "wins" the Hate War if it goes hot "wins", they'll start purging the moderates. We already see both sides eat their own at the extremes, whether it's SJWs crucifying each other for wrongthink or alt-right sorts accusing each other of being feds or secret Jews. Once they have the government-sanctioned power to imprison and kill each other for small ideological differences, they'll start doing that.
If I die for refusing to take a side in the Hate War, at least I won't have to live to see what the fuck the world becomes.
 
This is the point I'm trying to make; you know there's a machine, but you're still trapped in it. Both sides are against "there being a USA". Extremists on the Left want to turn the US into an amorphous blob without any identity that goes against the ideals of the country, and extremists on the Right want to turn the US into a theocratic ethnostate that goes against the ideals of the country. Richard Spencer, Chris Cantwell, Vox Day and their like talk about "loving America", but their ideals would destroy it. The difference is just the flavor of the same underlying principle, and (maddiningly-enough to me) there are people like you who see this happening, recognize it for what it is, and decide to keep doing it anyways. You might think that you're riding a tiger and those of us who walk away from the whole mess and want humans to love each other and treat each other like human beings instead of descending into a genocidal frenzy of tribalism are going to be destroyed; and if we are, so be it. But you are going to be destroyed too; just slightly later. Once the enemies run out, Moloch demands the blood of his own children, and those close to him are happy to oblige. When the Stalinists won, they started purging the moderates. When the Nazis won, they started purging the moderates. And when whatever side that "wins" the Hate War if it goes hot "wins", they'll start purging the moderates. We already see both sides eat their own at the extremes, whether it's SJWs crucifying each other for wrongthink or alt-right sorts accusing each other of being feds or secret Jews. Once they have the government-sanctioned power to imprison and kill each other for small ideological differences, they'll start doing that.
If I die for refusing to take a side in the Hate War, at least I won't have to live to see what the fuck the world becomes.

Alright, you raise some really good points.

I don't know how we work our way out of this mess, if we even can, I'll confess to the desire to just see the other side suffer no matter the cost, even though I know it wouldn't really lead to anything good either.

Hey, I'm not perfect, not at all, I am very, very flawed in fact.

I just wish America could go back to the way it was 20 years ago, which wasn't perfect but it worked, but I don't know if we can go back, it just doesn't seem fair that this would all be happening so soon.
 
Last edited:
This is the point I'm trying to make; you know there's a machine, but you're still trapped in it. Both sides are against "there being a USA". Extremists on the Left want to turn the US into an amorphous blob without any identity that goes against the ideals of the country, and extremists on the Right want to turn the US into a theocratic ethnostate that goes against the ideals of the country. Richard Spencer, Chris Cantwell, Vox Day and their like talk about "loving America", but their ideals would destroy it. The difference is just the flavor of the same underlying principle, and (maddiningly-enough to me) there are people like you who see this happening, recognize it for what it is, and decide to keep doing it anyways. You might think that you're riding a tiger and those of us who walk away from the whole mess and want humans to love each other and treat each other like human beings instead of descending into a genocidal frenzy of tribalism are going to be destroyed; and if we are, so be it. But you are going to be destroyed too; just slightly later. Once the enemies run out, Moloch demands the blood of his own children, and those close to him are happy to oblige. When the Stalinists won, they started purging the moderates. When the Nazis won, they started purging the moderates. And when whatever side that "wins" the Hate War if it goes hot "wins", they'll start purging the moderates. We already see both sides eat their own at the extremes, whether it's SJWs crucifying each other for wrongthink or alt-right sorts accusing each other of being feds or secret Jews. Once they have the government-sanctioned power to imprison and kill each other for small ideological differences, they'll start doing that.
If I die for refusing to take a side in the Hate War, at least I won't have to live to see what the fuck the world becomes.

Richard Spencer and Vox Day are thoroughly isolated and would be pariah’s in congress. Steve King fits this mould and he’s a pariah.

now compare and contrast with this. She had only won her primary and Vox Magazine was putting out articles about how we should abolish the minimum age for the presidency.
3C167EB5-D46F-4F37-B459-4959B0941CB6.jpeg
 
Yes, because the vocal minority always defines what large swathes of people are. That's why all whites are Nazis, all men are rapists, all Republicans are fascists who masturbate to The Turner Diaries, and all Democrats are Stalinists. It is vitally important that we never actually try to understand the Hated Foe, lest human feeling spoil the purity of our hate. Dehumanize yourself and embrace violence.
The more I see of the modern day, the more I think that it wasn't Orwell or Huxley that predicted the future: it was Effinger.
This kind of moralizing is rich coming from the guy who unironically believes Mitt Romney voted to convict out of deep character convictions, and regularly goes to the pages of right-wing lolcows to shit-talk them. This air of moral superiority and higher empathy you're trying to put on is wholly undeserved, and you're clearly not above tribalistic thinking yourself.

This kind of TL;DR screed article being a "vocal minority" is, put bluntly, pure cope.

I'd say that's more of a case of the Democratic Party's leadership finally vanishing up their own asshole.
And yet very few prominent Democrats are calling them out for it. Fancy that.

Yes, which is why the only thing wrong about this article isn't the inherent thought process of "politics isn't a dialogue, but a war, and the goal is to crush the Enemy utterly": it's that its targeting US instead of THEM. Destroy the Enemy, dehumanize yourself and embrace violence, etc.
Do you really think the average Democrat voter sits down and thinks "gee, I sure do like destroying civilization and castrating children, let me masturbate to footage of whites being tortured?"
Your attempts to straw-man everyone who sees the Democrat party in its current form as terrible to be extremely tribalistic accelerationists is obnoxious and frankly disgusting.

And to blunt, there are many people in the Democratic party who do see politics as war right now. You can't make much progress against such people in reasoned discourse, and they will take advantage of those with "turn the other cheek" thinking. Such people do have to be crushed, and crushed hard.

The GOP will seize to exist. By in large the majority of Republican voters are white, the majority of people who support Donald Trump are white. Keeping that in mind, consider this, racial minorities are growing at an increasing rate and at a faster rate than the white majority. In general, nonwhite voters prefer the Democratic party over the GOP 70%-90%. Most of the youngest registered voters are nonwhite. Most of the people immigrating here are nonwhite. With a steady demographic shift over time you will see more states flip blue. Just like you saw Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, California flip blue. By the end of the decade it will be almost impossible for a Republicans to win the presidency. I say almost because you have to keep in mind a few things: For decades Republicans have alienated potential nonwhite voters with policies that largely affect their communities in a negative way, the Republican platform seems to contradict the values of many minorities, Trump is the most popular candidate with nonwhite voters in modern politics, however, he only won 4% of the black vote and 29% of the Hispanic vote in 2016. If the GOP wishes to survive, it will need to adapt and evolve it’s platform to include minority voters.
This reads like a copypasta written by a Democrat think tank.

And as a counter-point to the bolded, even if it was true that Republicans have only, by and large, harmed minorities, Democrats certainly aren't any better. California has been a Democrat stronghold for decades, yet it's a trashfire on all fronts, even in minority communities.

Alright, so weasel words it is. Let me ask you again, this time without humor:
Do you really think the average Democrat voter is a Democrat because they are consciously and deliberately pro-the destruction of civilization and the mutilation of children, and the murder of the average American? Not "an increasing number". Not "a large minority". Do you believe the above outlines the thought process of the average voter for a Democratic candidate?
Another straw-man. This is just pitiful.

"A significant and rising number of Democrats dislike America and it's current form of government as a whole" =/= "All Democrats everywhere want to see civilization destroyed and Americans genocided"

demographics do matter, and you're going to find out sooner or later - for example, the next time you move out of your neighborhood because it's too, y'know, unsafe for your children. shitlibs will just brush yet another destroyed neighborhood off as "structural racism" and "inequality" which, of course, can be solved by just voting the right people into positions of power, just like how hugo chavez fixed everything and nothing bad ever happened in venezuela after he was elected. same with hitler. same with bernie. or even drumpf.

one serious problem with classical liberals and all of their offshoots, including marxists, is that people aren't all the same on the inside, which problematic when you're trying to homogenize everyone into the perfect consumer-drone, worker bee, or whatever purely materialist evolutionary endgoal the political sphere dreams up for its inhabitants. we're not all carbon copies of each other despite girardian mimicry being very real, and the more we beat out heads over with this idiot stick, the more we hurt ourselves and absolutely nobody else. nobody else on earth believes this trash except westerners, nobody else is forced to believe it or forces themselves to believe it, and it's the absolutely moronic hill the west has collectively decided to die on (i do believe spengler is right, but we're watching the tape play in fast-forward because of the rate of information exchange and global connectedness now). but i don't blame people necessarily for believing enlightenment lies still, it's hard to overnight undo ultimately disgenic beliefs that have 350 years of not being sufficiently challenged at the core. (compare: christianity since copernicus.)


that point already passed, i must have missed the civil war that broke out over it.


the final point i would add is that immigration and birthrates are nonlinear, and this is what ethnonarcissists of all stripes don't understand at all. demographics is destiny, but not the destiny you were thinking of, and only in the extreme short term (it is well-known that as a society comes near collapse, time preference of all parties becomes extremely high and becomes essentially a race to the bottom; open borders and UBI are prime examples of extremely high societal time preference for on one hand the ruling elites and on the other a slop-consumption drone often referred to as the average citizen).
the minorities of america are all convinced that when muh ypipo are gone, everything will be fine. surprise: it won't. sklavenmoral + ethnonarcissism != a successful society (unless you're ashkenazi i suppose, but that's the exception that proves the rule).

assuming that the US is still around in 30 years in similar shape, juan the illegal border hopper may indeed have 12 kids today, but those kids are all going to be fat and useless burger-munching sugarhogs and fentanyl addicts just as much as cletus and tyrone today are, and thus aren't likely to have they own keedz theyself's, or at least not an additional 12. just look at your average hispanic mostly raised in the good-ol estados unidos. why, he's more homogenized than the shit that's sold as tard cum at walmart, and yet he comes with that beautiful exterior paint job referred to "nonwhite." (the ideological system at work in the west right now is meant to produce docile consooomers with the exterior paint job of a tolerant society, but it's a psychological and sociological cross between crabs-in-a-bucket and a black hole.)

periods of high immigration also correlate with periods of war. no "explicit" war has broken out yet for some reason (it's been proxy wars such as the arab spring et al), but there's no reason to suppose the "pax-post-WWII" era will continue indefinitely. add a global pandemic as the appetizer and i'm sure everyone will be getting along just fine in the near future.
aside from all that, and assuming no war and that the high-fructose corn syrup keeps being extruded into everyones' mouths, prosperity is a curse you don't get to outlive without someone trying to take it from you while you're too satiated to defend yourself. or at least, nobody to my knowledge has done so yet. the finnish have always had to fend off others, so they're one of the few that get to be highly educated, successful, 1st world, and have a healthy ethnic identity without being narcissistic over it. but other than that i'm not sure.

just wait until the africans start turning up on new world shores by the aircraft carrier-load begging to eat your gourmet bigot bugs in your designer shipping container house in post-nueva-yorque. that's when you and your state-mandated roastie get to explain everything away to your mystery meat post-ethnic children.
the last line was a sort of joke. sort of.
Okay, so what could fix all of this and stave of the decline of the US?
 
Richard Spencer and Vox Day are thoroughly isolated and would be pariah’s in congress. Steve King fits this mould and he’s a pariah.

now compare and contrast with this. She had only won her primary and Vox Magazine was putting out articles about how we should abolish the minimum age for the presidency.
View attachment 1148660
She won with a small percentage of the electorate in her district and only because the incumbent was a old corrupt fuck who never came by to say hi. 2020 is the true test for her to see if she can survive in congress with her ideas.
 
This is the point I'm trying to make; you know there's a machine, but you're still trapped in it. Both sides are against "there being a USA". Extremists on the Left want to turn the US into an amorphous blob without any identity that goes against the ideals of the country, and extremists on the Right want to turn the US into a theocratic ethnostate that goes against the ideals of the country. Richard Spencer, Chris Cantwell, Vox Day and their like talk about "loving America", but their ideals would destroy it. The difference is just the flavor of the same underlying principle, and (maddiningly-enough to me) there are people like you who see this happening, recognize it for what it is, and decide to keep doing it anyways. You might think that you're riding a tiger and those of us who walk away from the whole mess and want humans to love each other and treat each other like human beings instead of descending into a genocidal frenzy of tribalism are going to be destroyed; and if we are, so be it. But you are going to be destroyed too; just slightly later. Once the enemies run out, Moloch demands the blood of his own children, and those close to him are happy to oblige. When the Stalinists won, they started purging the moderates. When the Nazis won, they started purging the moderates. And when whatever side that "wins" the Hate War if it goes hot "wins", they'll start purging the moderates. We already see both sides eat their own at the extremes, whether it's SJWs crucifying each other for wrongthink or alt-right sorts accusing each other of being feds or secret Jews. Once they have the government-sanctioned power to imprison and kill each other for small ideological differences, they'll start doing that.
If I die for refusing to take a side in the Hate War, at least I won't have to live to see what the fuck the world becomes.
One point, I would like to comment on even though I mostly agree with you, is that the nazis and stalinists are on the same side of the coin. They just ruled in different ways.

Hitler wasn't for a theocratic ethnostate, despite being a nationalist. He was for a government-controlled economy as well as government-controlled public services through the nationalistic pride of Germany. Stalin had the same shit, except it was less about nationalistic pride, it was more about pride for the leaders of the government, via him. He wasn't a nationalist, he was against the idea of nation-themed pride. He prided on himself. Hitler cared more about the direction of the country rather than him leading it. With this in mind, people like Richard Spencer and Nick Fuentes misunderstand nazism and have their own shitty separate ideas that they think is nazism, but it isn't. It's gay and retarded.
 
This is the point I'm trying to make; you know there's a machine, but you're still trapped in it. Both sides are against "there being a USA". Extremists on the Left want to turn the US into an amorphous blob without any identity that goes against the ideals of the country, and extremists on the Right want to turn the US into a theocratic ethnostate that goes against the ideals of the country. Richard Spencer, Chris Cantwell, Vox Day and their like talk about "loving America", but their ideals would destroy it. The difference is just the flavor of the same underlying principle, and (maddiningly-enough to me) there are people like you who see this happening, recognize it for what it is, and decide to keep doing it anyways. You might think that you're riding a tiger and those of us who walk away from the whole mess and want humans to love each other and treat each other like human beings instead of descending into a genocidal frenzy of tribalism are going to be destroyed; and if we are, so be it. But you are going to be destroyed too; just slightly later. Once the enemies run out, Moloch demands the blood of his own children, and those close to him are happy to oblige. When the Stalinists won, they started purging the moderates. When the Nazis won, they started purging the moderates. And when whatever side that "wins" the Hate War if it goes hot "wins", they'll start purging the moderates. We already see both sides eat their own at the extremes, whether it's SJWs crucifying each other for wrongthink or alt-right sorts accusing each other of being feds or secret Jews. Once they have the government-sanctioned power to imprison and kill each other for small ideological differences, they'll start doing that.
If I die for refusing to take a side in the Hate War, at least I won't have to live to see what the fuck the world becomes.
This "I am a rational, loving, and ever-so-enlightened moderate/centrist" grandstanding is getting old.

The "extreme right" as it were, are a collection of disparate and often infighting ideological groups that are completely isolated from any real power whatsoever, at least in America.

The "extreme left", however, is backed by major corporations, think tanks, lobbyists, and powerful cosmopolitan "philanthropists". They are currently in the process of vigorously working to make sure our news, social media, pop culture, laws, etc. are aligned more and more with their views.

Compare the power of the trans lobby (who have recently been making pushes to get children to go transgender) to the power of the modern Ku Klux Klan, and the difference is night and day. As of now, they are incomparable except in purely theoretical terms, wholly district from the practical realities of the current situation.
 
Sorry, I can't even read that article. It's terrible. From what I gather, a monkey is angry at Trump because orange man bad. This is what immigration gets you, badly written articles from people who are eventually going to die of AIDS.
So if we increase immigration, will the author die of AIDS even faster? If so, I think we really should consider it.
 
"in order to save our democracy, we must become a one-party state!"

:thinking:

Because that's working out so well for Canada . . .

I have heard hard left people say unironically that Orwell is now an alt-right Dogwhistle for nationalists. Yes.



I want to leave and the only way I'm coming back is in Terminator Armour.

Why not a Dreadnought?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: TerribleIdeas™
Alright, you raise some really good points.

I don't know how we work our way out of this mess, if we even can, I'll confess to the desire to just see the other side suffer no matter the cost, even though I know it wouldn't really lead to anything good either.

Hey, I'm not perfect, not at all, I am very, very flawed in fact.

I just wish America could go back to the way it was 20 years ago, which wasn't perfect but it worked, but I don't know if we can go back, it just doesn't seem fair that this would all be happening so soon.
We aren't perfect, but we should try to be. Going "oh, woe am I for being a sinner!" means nothing if we don't do anything afterwards.

This "I am a rational, loving, and ever-so-enlightened moderate/centrist" grandstanding is getting old.

The "extreme right" as it were, are a collection of disparate and often infighting ideological groups that are completely isolated from any real power whatsoever, at least in America.

The "extreme left", however, is backed by major corporations, think tanks, lobbyists, and powerful cosmopolitan "philanthropists". They are currently in the process of vigorously working to make sure our news, social media, pop culture, laws, etc. are aligned more and more with their views.

Compare the power of the trans lobby (who have recently been making pushes to get children to go transgender) to the power of the modern Ku Klux Klan, and the difference is night and day. As of now, they are incomparable except in purely theoretical terms, wholly district from the practical realities of the current situation.
This is what I'm walking about. I criticize the entire stupid political game of tribalism, and you interpret it as a tribal attack.
 
We aren't perfect, but we should try to be. Going "oh, woe am I for being a sinner!" means nothing if we don't do anything afterwards.

There's not really anything I can do about this modern situation though.

I've tried to run in left wing online communities and be a voice of reason but the more time went on the more impossible it became to communicate with them and it was 1 too many personal insults and attacks that finally made me say "fuck it" and join the Farms.
 
This is what I'm walking about. I criticize the entire stupid political game of tribalism, and you interpret it as a tribal attack.
I'm not interpreting it as anything other than holier-than-thou mental masturbation from a sanctimonious hypocrite who clearly isn't above the same "stupid political game of tribalism" that he himself condemns.
 
Personally, I think we should install a Spartan-eque militaristic society without the widow inheritance law that created an un-accounted for upper middle class of political influencers. Outside of that Sparta's main problem was negative population growth (basically zero immigration, rich women being choosy, killing weak babies, etc.), which could be solved both by the aforementioned lack of widow inheritance (or serial widow inheritance) and by not having slaves that outnumber you.

m4yc5j6q7ga31.jpg
 
Back