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.”
 
Say what you want about @Ashy the Angel , but at least they're don't put on airs.
humiliation fetishists who get off on telling everyone their political ideology stems from the kind of porn they consume aren't much better than the arrogant neckbeards pretending to be nonpartisan.
 
curiously your kind only ever engage in that 'criticism' where said tribalism might come to harm the left, never when it's employed in their favor
really makes me think
:thinking:
Show me people on Kiwi Farms talking about how the Right stands for the annihilation of civilization and should be destroyed and I'll go and say the same to them. I'm not omniscient, and neither are you. When I went to college, I said the same shit to the socialists on campus who cheered for violent revolution and proclaimed that anyone who voted for Trump was basically a Nazi.
 
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.
71389617-2889-42AE-9657-7F3A5CE6FDD3.jpeg
What the fuck am I reading?
 
>credibly accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl and pursuing several other teenagers
>credibly


Lol, The first case was a proven lie where (((Gloria Allred))) admitted to outright forging evidence, and the cases afterwards were all "somebody said _____" cases that never went anywhere.
credibly means what they want it to mean, no less and no more
 
Okay, so what could fix all of this and stave of the decline of the US?

end the GOP lol

i think we're facing two fundamental issues at the same time: the end of a political system/society and the end of a metaphysical system (neoplatonic religion)
you can't "fix" a political system's decline in the same way you can't "fix" old age (at least, not yet). in political order and political decay fukuyama does say it's possible but not probable and gives examples of attempts to clean up various bureaucracies. also, the desire for so many people to turn the clock back is simply wishful thinking. even if you could turn the clock back, you'd end up having the same exact problems, and they'd appear even faster with the technologies we have today. moldbug offered a somewhat tongue-in-cheek solution, but again it's just turning the clock back.
as for the other big issue, the spenglerian view is that the "metaphysical gas tank is empty" so to speak (here's a spergy video about "art after metaphysics" which i think illustrates the underlying very-long-term problems we're struggling with at the "spiritual level" if you will)

we don't know how to stave off decline and even if we had a new metaphysical center (religion) to reignite the spark of civilization, the old institutions have to be thrown out or heavily modified to fit the new (old wineskins/new wine). the exciting part of all this is that it means the "new" metaphysic, the "new religion," is probably appearing somewhere on earth soon if it's not already here (it always eventually does show up). that's what i would put my "faith" in for lack of a better word. until then it's bubblegum and tape to hold what we currently have together. it's a particularly dark view but the upside is that it means there's opportunity for something entirely different and new out there. and i don't mean mass-trooning-out as "the new" thing, as it's yet another attempt to solve the issues of the human condition through purely materialist (which is actually narcissistic) means. the decadent society we live in is just evidence that the old formes fixes have been deconstructed and thrown in the garbage heap. the default hedonistic race to the bottom takes over as a surrogate ideology.

the best of all worlds scenario is that i'm wrong (the constitution can be salvaged and is indeed a polylogic document whose underlying enlightenment assumptions can cater to several different cultures' needs through time), spengler is wrong (civilizations don't have a catalogable "lifespan"), heidegger is wrong (our metaphysical age isn't over), nietzsche is wrong (nihilism won't devour us and we won't need to "evolve"), etc, and that we collectively "figure it out" in a peaceful manner or with an outright deus ex machina scenario. but even a zen master would doubt that. something something war and hegel.
 
Show me people on Kiwi Farms talking about how the Right stands for the annihilation of civilization and should be destroyed and I'll go and say the same to them. I'm not omniscient, and neither are you. When I went to college, I said the same shit to the socialists on campus who cheered for violent revolution and proclaimed that anyone who voted for Trump was basically a Nazi.

Just stop.

Pretty much nobody believes you after you complained about sticker ratio in State of the Board:

Among the general population of Farms posters; if you look at the ratio, you'll see there's a fair number of people who are upvoting them, which suggests that the issue is a bit more than just one or two people. I'd say there's a distinct cadre of posters that objectively shit up A&H (which others here are calling the 9-5 posters). I will fully yield, however, that this cadre probably isn't the majority: that was a case of me making a hasty generalization, and I apologize.

You're as partisan as they come, and that's fine. Just own up to it.
 
words words words
The reason war hasn’t broken out yet is painfully obvious. Nukes. War is a losing proposition if you’re going up against a nuclear power without having them, and also a losing proposition against someone else that does have them, because you can get their silos but never all the subs. Any and every misstep you make risks annihilation. Which is why in reality, there won’t be any war at all, or human civilization as a whole ends.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: dopy and SilkGnut
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?
I think that the average Democrat voter is a rube, barely aware of their own thought processes. They are led by the nose using emotional manipulation based on a false reality, which is why the outcomes of their actions almost never line up with their intentions. As such, their thoughts and their intentions are practically meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Show me the world leaders considering putting a Klan member on their advisory board and you'll have a point.
United States would be one country as the Democrats loved their KKK brethren until it became unfashionable to be associated with them.
 
  • Late
Reactions: SilkGnut
One party rule by the party of Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd and "We need concentration camps for the Japs no matter what every single advisor I have says" Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Sounds like a racist's wet dream to me.
 
I'm totally shocked that a leftist nigger writes a hit piece against the Republican Party..Uses Roy Moore and Donald Trump because low-hanging fruit is easy, and uses Olympic-style mental gymnastics to omit the fact that blacks have prospered under Trump..
 
METAL GEAR?!
Nobody is using nukes. The reason war hasn't broken out is social conditioning and laziness. Right wing baby boomers are still feeling pretty comfy and their kids aren't being supported in calling antifa the ugly faggots they are to their face, let alone fighting the good fight and sending the crooked individuals causing them problems their merry little way.
 
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.
Exactly how are Republicans excluding minorities? What values do minorities have that are contradicted by Republican policies? Which minority communities being negatively affected are run by Republicans?

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.
As others have pointed out, you can really put SJWs and Idpol politics on the same level as the true alt-right and neo-Nazis. The only people that pay attention to Richard Spencer is Leftist media, specifically because they want to paint all Republicans and Trump supports as being just like him. Leftist ideology is touted everywhere in society.
 
Exactly how are Republicans excluding minorities? What values do minorities have that are contradicted by Republican policies? Which minority communities being negatively affected are run by Republicans?

I go a step further by mentionning how Democrats include minorities? I got the feeling they kept them in the dark and only give some money when it's time to vote to remind minorities to vote Democrat.
 
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.
Your post reminded me of something I read. It was a review (more of an overview) of the book Days of Rage by Bryan Burrough about the left wing terrorists of the 60s and 70s. The writer pointed out how even in the 60s and 70s the radicals had powerful allies in education, law firms, even some churches that provided materials for the groups whether intended or not. This also explains why someone who helped bomb the pentagon could go on to get a cushy job as a college professor. That’s the big difference between left wing and right wing violence. It is socially unacceptable to be a nazi or any right wing group and you won’t get much funding. If you do manage to get funding, the group funding you will get dragged through the mud and lose face giving you support. The opposite is true for left wing groups, in fact it is socially encouraged to be a radical left winger or marxist. I’m not saying being a nazi is good, WW2 proved that Nazis were terrible leaders since they fucking lost the war not to mention the whole holocaust shit. What I am saying is that left wing groups have networks of support that right wing groups lack.

Article I mentioned
 
Back