Leftist Child Grooming

Wargamer08

Well-known member
The left sowed this whirlwind, we all have to repeat it but contrary to what you're taught right wing tyrannies (the exception being African Fascists. HOLY FUCK! ONE GUY EXTERMINATED HALF HIS POPULATION!) the right kills comparatively less percentages of its population than leftist and deconstructivists do.

A South American or Taiwanese Nationalist right wing dictatorship in the US right now would be comparatively less bloody , kill less Americans and cause less national damage than Clinton, Bush, Obama or Biden have


They also have a habit of actually dealing with their promised targets. The problem is that they often don't give a single solitary fuck about everyone around. their targets and tend to adopt the Genghis Khan mantra of "had you not done a great wrong I would not be here."

And the embezzlement but they rob less than the Bidens have so the average American may not even have a problem with it.

Edit- not that I'm defending this shit, I've always maintained that using right wing strongmen to clean up your country is like using a pair of King Cobras to solve a rat problem in your house. The solution presents a problem of its own.
When you look around and realize that your house is rats all the way down it gets easy to overlook the downsides of cobras.
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
When you look around and realize that your house is rats all the way down it gets easy to overlook the downsides of cobras.
Yeah, I guess at a certain point the citizenry of the nation so afflicted has to decide between Typhus or plague and a potential bite from a King Cobra.

And a lot of said citizens are gonna take their chances with the snakes in a permanent state of roid rage.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
O'Sullivan's law isn't an actual legal law, it's a tendency observed. Any organization that is not explicitly and legally right wing will gradually become increasingly liberal.

Twitter being bought by Elon Musk is literally the only counter-example in recent history compared with an avalanche of corporations becoming more woke over time.

This article is beautiful and that last paragraph perfectly encapsulates why conservatives with the dumb small gubamint mindset will make us lose.

Then I guess those institutions and corporations just have to go.

Which brings me to my first point.

The economic policy of the Right should be scorched Earth on any private entity that doesn't conform to its views and relentless lawfare and law changes to do the same to governmental ones.
Except your ideas won’t work. Flat out you don’t have the ability to do what you say you want to do. It’s like Russia saying they will conquer America lol. Not only does the right not have the tools or organization or numbers to do lawfare and boycotts. You want to weaken it more with stupid ideas like abolishing three letter agencies. Your path just leads to conservatives being beaten or killed watching their daughters become shores and their sons trannies. All because you were too ignorant to know a right wing strawman needs three letter agencies.
 

AnimalNoodles

Well-known member
I mean if the conservatives actually try getting smaller government they could go places.
Unfortunately their mindset is primarily "MORE GOVERNEMNT (If they agree with us for a short while)"

You arent getting 'smaller government'. Those days are gone.

You need to take the reigns of the state, purge your enemies and use the institutions to implement your agenda.
 
Last edited:

King Arts

Well-known member
In America, small government is one of the three core principles of conservatism.

I still don't understand why you think large government is going to lead to anything except tyranny.
I’ll use the example in the article. Is Attaturk a conservative in regards to Turkey.
I mean if the conservatives actually try getting smaller government they could go places.
Unfortunately their mindset is primarily "MORE GOVERNEMNT (If they agree with us for a short while)"
Except small government fails again and again it’s those that champion a stronger more centralized government that win and are lauded as great men compare FDR vs Hoover. One is remembered as weak to corporate interests and led to the Great Depression while the other is seen as one of the best presidents who ended the depression led America to win a world war and started the American golden age. He’s pretty close to being an American Caesar.
The point is that if you wanted a weak federal government and strong states you should not have let the US have such a powerful army each state should have had a separate one. After the civil war it’s too late to change anything. We can also look at the EU right now each independent nation is more powerful but the day that there is a strong central EU army is the day the nations of Europe lose power.
 

ThatZenoGuy

Zealous Evolutionary Nano Organism
You arent getting 'smaller government'. Those days are gone.

You need to take the reigns of the state, purge your enemies and use the institutions to implement your agenda.
Of course, but I am not convinced any current US elect is going to do that. Yet conservatives cannot shut up about the latest republican candidates and such. Their heart is in the right place but god damn their methods are terrible.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
You arent getting 'smaller government'. Those days are gone.

You need to take the reigns of the state, purge your enemies and use the institutions to implement your agenda.

Larger government always results in increasing levels of tyranny and poverty.

Surrendering to big government as inevitable is surrendering to tyranny and steadily-waning prosperity as inevitable.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Larger government always results in increasing levels of tyranny and poverty.

Surrendering to big government as inevitable is surrendering to tyranny and steadily-waning prosperity as inevitable.
What kind of nonsense is this? There are many empires and kingdoms that were far richer than Republics.
 

AnimalNoodles

Well-known member
Larger government always results in increasing levels of tyranny and poverty.

Surrendering to big government as inevitable is surrendering to tyranny and steadily-waning prosperity as inevitable.

Then into the dustbin of history you go.

The America you think you are defending no longer exists. You induhvidualizm only means you fight leviathan by yourself.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
What kind of nonsense is this? There are many empires and kingdoms that were far richer than Republics.
Yeah but they weren’t “big government” as we know it.

His Majesty George III would be absolutely aghast at how vast the remit of the modern British state is. And by insisting on shoving its nose into basically everything, an over mighty state has a nasty habit of buggering things up all the more…
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Yeah but they weren’t “big government” as we know it.

His Majesty George III would be absolutely aghast at how vast the remit of the modern British state is. And by insisting on shoving its nose into basically everything, an over mighty state has a nasty habit of buggering things up all the more…
I was actually thinking of China in the middle ages which was an absolute monarchy where "rights" did not exist. Or ancient Persia, or Rome. Not a parliamentary monarchy.

Also in what way was the UK not big government? The American founding fathers had a problem with the British imposition of laws, the taxes, and regulations.
 

DarthOne

☦️
I was actually thinking of China in the middle ages which was an absolute monarchy where "rights" did not exist. Or ancient Persia, or Rome. Not a parliamentary monarchy.

Also in what way was the UK not big government? The American founding fathers had a problem with the British imposition of laws, the taxes, and regulations.
The difference, at least in part, is between what Big Government is now vs what it was then. The Founders or other people back then could barely have imagined how bad things are now.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
The difference, at least in part, is between what Big Government is now vs what it was then. The Founders or other people back then could barely have imagined how bad things are now.
What exactly do you mean when you say "Big Government"? I'm thinking of it as a government that CAN do anything it wants but does not neccesarily do it, it's simply a tool they can use. For example with property rights. With a big government they can take a bussiness away but for most of the time they won't. Just like in the middle ages they only take away and kill the people who are disloyal to the leader. So society as a whole won't suffer from a loss of legitimacy like communism brings forth.

Machievaelli wrote about this and how a new prince needs to do all his wrong doings in one fell swoop. So execute all your enemies, and take their property and give it to loyal supporters but you only do it once at the beginning and for the rest of your life you respect property rights.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
What kind of nonsense is this? There are many empires and kingdoms that were far richer than Republics.
Yeah, yeah, and Saudi Arabia is richer than South Korea on per capita basis, but only one of these countries is an industrial and technological power. But if we're talking industrially rich, rather than exporting lots of expensive resources, you won't find any.
I was actually thinking of China in the middle ages which was an absolute monarchy where "rights" did not exist. Or ancient Persia, or Rome. Not a parliamentary monarchy.

Also in what way was the UK not big government? The American founding fathers had a problem with the British imposition of laws, the taxes, and regulations.
The big government of yesteryear are by hard figures smaller than the smaller governments of post-industrial era.
Back to today:
USA has a public sector of size similar to socialdemocracies like Portugal, Germany, Mexico, Turkey, South Africa or Denmark, while post communist and communist countries reach multiples of that.

To add to the irony, the culturally collectivist Asians who are big industrial powers, like Japan, South Korea and Singapore, even rapidly growing still semi-communist Vietnam? They in fact have considerably smaller public sectors than USA!
What exactly do you mean when you say "Big Government"? I'm thinking of it as a government that CAN do anything it wants but does not neccesarily do it, it's simply a tool they can use. For example with property rights. With a big government they can take a bussiness away but for most of the time they won't. Just like in the middle ages they only take away and kill the people who are disloyal to the leader. So society as a whole won't suffer from a loss of legitimacy like communism brings forth.
So you just want a totalitarian government that rules on a whim, got it. Why don't you move to a country that has one? There are many...
Machievaelli wrote about this and how a new prince needs to do all his wrong doings in one fell swoop. So execute all your enemies, and take their property and give it to loyal supporters but you only do it once at the beginning and for the rest of your life you respect property rights.
That's called a regime change, explicitly advising against rule by whim.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top