What Should The Right Wing Be?

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
And how are they going to do that?

If heavily armed people want to organise in the streets, I'm not sure how they can stop that. When the demobbed vet with his AR-15 raises an eyebrow at overweight 5ft Officer Sheridon with her hand gun, the jig would be up. And that's before the ANTI-FA neets go and pick a fight they really shouldn't.

With the military and the police. If you think that Leftists won't use those against "Fascists," you have another thing coming. The military has tanks. You don't. They will win.

This fantasy of the armed militia rebellion is one of the most pervasive myths on the Right. I find it to be a thought-terminating cliche that is intellectually lazy (you don't need self-reflection or a plan if you can just beat your enemy in an armed struggle). It's basically the right-wing equivalent of the Leftist "revolution" meme.
 
With the military and the police. If you think that Leftists won't use those against "Fascists," you have another thing coming. The military has tanks. You don't. They will win.

This fantasy of the armed militia rebellion is one of the most pervasive myths on the Right. I find it to be a thought-terminating cliche that is intellectually lazy (you don't need self-reflection or a plan if you can just beat your enemy in an armed struggle). It's basically the right-wing equivalent of the Leftist "revolution" meme.

There doesn't need to be an arm conflict when Antifa crumple at the first sight of resistance. The only places where they run wild are big cities that are ran by revolutionary wannabees, places where armed forces or armed civilians threaten to give them a bad time, not so much. these people are essentially kids who are spoiled brats, and like spoiled brats they need a spaking followed by being sent to their room with no TV or video games.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
being sent to their room with no TV or video games.

They spit on both and spit on the people who like that stuff all whilst claiming to love it and sinultaneously complaining and wanting severe changes. Only reason they engage in it is to politicize it and tweet on social media about what “good” they’ve done

No, take away their access to social media and forbid them from seeing their “friends” and keep them away from “college”

Cut off their funding as well

If they’re out of the house long after, still cut off said funding and when the cops come for them, let them deal with the consequences
 

LifeisTiresome

Well-known member
With the military and the police. If you think that Leftists won't use those against "Fascists," you have another thing coming. The military has tanks. You don't. They will win.

This fantasy of the armed militia rebellion is one of the most pervasive myths on the Right. I find it to be a thought-terminating cliche that is intellectually lazy (you don't need self-reflection or a plan if you can just beat your enemy in an armed struggle). It's basically the right-wing equivalent of the Leftist "revolution" meme.
Rightwingers and their "muh guns" is so larping, I agree.

There doesn't need to be an arm conflict when Antifa crumple at the first sight of resistance. The only places where they run wild are big cities that are ran by revolutionary wannabees, places where armed forces or armed civilians threaten to give them a bad time, not so much. these people are essentially kids who are spoiled brats, and like spoiled brats they need a spaking followed by being sent to their room with no TV or video games.
They spit on both and spit on the people who like that stuff all whilst claiming to love it and sinultaneously complaining and wanting severe changes. Only reason they engage in it is to politicize it and tweet on social media about what “good” they’ve done

No, take away their access to social media and forbid them from seeing their “friends” and keep them away from “college”

Cut off their funding as well

If they’re out of the house long after, still cut off said funding and when the cops come for them, let them deal with the consequences
Again, leftists control the institutions. They plan to have white people not breed and import people who will vote left. They talk about this where they through immigration and people leaving Cali and settling into Texas and then voting Blue. They openly state this.

And yet all rightwingers can talk about is "muh guns"
 
Again, leftists control the institutions. They plan to have white people not breed and import people who will vote left. They talk about this where they through immigration and people leaving Cali and settling into Texas and then voting Blue. They openly state this.

And yet all rightwingers can talk about is "muh guns"

And who's fault is it for white people not breeding? nobody is putting a gun to a white guys head and telling them to be celibate, and I'm sorry, conservatives are at fault for having a "Those that can't teach" attitude right up until high school and college kids started shouting "Marxist revolution."

If you have to be cohered by the institutions and powers to take action, then don't be surprised when your played like a fool.
 
They spit on both and spit on the people who like that stuff all whilst claiming to love it and sinultaneously complaining and wanting severe changes. Only reason they engage in it is to politicize it and tweet on social media about what “good” they’ve done

No, take away their access to social media and forbid them from seeing their “friends” and keep them away from “college”

Cut off their funding as well

If they’re out of the house long after, still cut off said funding and when the cops come for them, let them deal with the consequences


Sent to thier room was supposed to be a metaphor for federal prison.
 

LifeisTiresome

Well-known member
And who's fault is it for white people not breeding? nobody is putting a gun to a white guys head and telling them to be celibate, and I'm sorry, conservatives are at fault for having a "Those that can't teach" attitude right up until high school and college kids started shouting "Marxist revolution."

If you have to be cohered by the institutions and powers to take action, then don't be surprised when your played like a fool.
First, I'm not a conservative nor am I white.

My post is mocking conservatives and their "muh gun" bullshit. And white people are indeed being told not to have kids. I have posted before pics of the media encouraging white people to not have kids cause good for environment only to then turn around and say cause people are not having kids, that their countries need immigrants who will have kids thus destroying any gain made with white people not having kids for the environment. What is gained is less white people. This is deliberate. Leftists openly state their objectives. They don't hide it.

The schools are all leftist.

"Muh guns" is bullshit larp. Nothing more.
 

LifeisTiresome

Well-known member
Personally, less white people could be good. They are leftists or support it or do nothing about it. They are the source of leftists poison. Maybe with them gone, leftism will die.
 

Fleiur

Well-known member
I think things like expenses should be taken into account
Well, duh.


It’s kinda radical, but maybe those mothers should start doing homeschooling for their kids with online stuff
Ehh, I don't think so. My kids will still face the real world. And I don't want to sheltered them.


Hell, both sexes may as well avoid college, won’t even feel they’ve wasted so much time and money if they learned elsewhere to begin with and they can teach their kids or teach via cheap but surprisingly effective online stuff and so on
Well, it depends on your degree. What if the kid wants to be a doctor or lawyer?
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
Plus some women are just better at number crunching then their husbands and do better at making money. Nobodies fault that's just the way the genetic dice rolled. Is it the norm, no. but in my opinion it shouldn't be squashed for a faux since of stability via conformity.
Otto Von Bismark ran his fathers estate after his mother's passing because his father couldn't do it, I am inclined to agree.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Guns are only useful if you have the organization and leadership to actually use them efficaciously.

Single right wingers resisting gun grabbers or going on the occasional shooting spree without any organizational or social support is the definition of ineffectual.

I mean if we had the organization and institutional backing, sure yeah right wing gun owners could cleanse Antifa and BLM nation wide in a matter of hours. Or days.

But without it? It’s just small acts of violence which are easily overcome and achieve nothing.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
There doesn't need to be an arm conflict when Antifa crumple at the first sight of resistance. The only places where they run wild are big cities that are ran by revolutionary wannabees, places where armed forces or armed civilians threaten to give them a bad time, not so much. these people are essentially kids who are spoiled brats, and like spoiled brats they need a spaking followed by being sent to their room with no TV or video games.
Antifa has permission to riot by the authorities. You do not have permission to defend yourself by the authorities. This is the essence of anarcho-tyranny.
 
My Vision of the Right.

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
What is Conservatism?

I was originally inspired to this thread by an article in The American Conservative, and think it bears repeating. If you look at the TAC Symposium "What is American Conservatism?", we find a wide variety of different ideas. Some point to George Washington for inspiration; others Alexander Hamilton. They may define conservatism as protecting the working man, the natural order, our traditions, or what we call home. Some say it's adherence to the old ideologies of natural rights, the American Constitution, and Fusionism, while others argue for more radical views. And some argue it doesn't mean anything at all.

This is a good thing, I feel. The Right should be where the idea old, stale political cliches that have long dominated our politics come to die and new ideas are developed, discussed, and (when we're able) tested. Here's what I say: keep political philosophy depoliticized. We ought to be working for long-term revival, whatever form it may take, not simply winning the next election. Whether you think political elections do good or not doesn't matter; they shouldn't be your main focus if you are a man of the Right. As we are now, the country is morally corrupt, has been for some time, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. We shouldn't be political ambitious at this point. Anyone who says that they have some kind of political plan to save America is selling you oceanfront property in Arizona.

The Right should be where the interesting people looking to question the liberal status quo should be gathered! This should be the place where countercultural artists, interesting thinkers, and people who just want to live a good, wholesome life should gather together for their mutual survival. This is a place where a new generation of leaders will emerge.

What Should Our Political Movement Be?

To ask what a right-wing political movement should be, I think the better question would be to ask: what should a political movement be? What should it desire for the people?

I think, first and foremost, a political movement ought to a) articulate the point of political life and b) pursue the common good.

So, what is the point of the political life? Well, that's a moral question, and the problem is that we've forgotten what that means. There exists a lack of moral clarity in our society. We have forgotten how to talk about morality rationally because there is no way of doing so given our understanding of it. Aladair MacIntyre's After Virtue makes it clear that, because of the destruction of our moral traditions following the Enlightenment, the morality of our society has also declined. Some might say that this would make our society laxer in their moral standards. They'd be incorrect. It has simply led to moral systems to becoming incoherent, shrill, and more stringent (just look at the behavior of the "Woke"). Because there is no rational way to ground moral claims, people just make irrational moral claims!

The primary way that this moralism has been destructive is in our intellectual capacity. This leads to the rise of what I call meta-bigotry, or bigotry in the service of fighting so-called bigots. Now the word bigot was traditionally used to describe people who are "intolerant towards those holding different opinions" (according to Oxford) and are "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices" (according to Merriam-Webster). These definitions of bigotry are procedural, not substantive. Having negative opinions about a group doesn't make you a bigot. Having untrue beliefs doesn't make you a bigot. Having unpopular or even crankish beliefs doesn't make you a bigot. Rather, it's holding a certain belief in an irrational way is what makes you a bigot. So when reasonable academics like Richard Swinburne or Charles Murray are attacked by shrill mobs of left-wing fanatics for being "bigots" because they disagree with progressives on issues like homosexuality or the heritability of IQ, you are dealing with an especially insidious, self-righteous form of bigotry that completely handicaps intellectual discourse.

So what causes this lack of clear morals? Yes, it is in part the ideologies that are dominate at this time, but it is primarily the irresponsible, unaccountable elites of our time. Sometimes, you get one or two progressive intellectuals admit that they are smart people that need to guide the stupid masses towards the right opinions, but then they'll say "this is for the good of democracy!" What doublethink is this? But then there are people like Noam Chomsky, who claim that those evil, evil right-wingers control the universities. Why, the Koch Brothers just donated a ton of money to some college. Clearly, this is an outrage. Never mind how scientists with politically incorrect research get blasted if they get too uppity. Never mind how colleges are dominated by the center-left. Never mind how universities are a branch of the government that goes completely unchecked yet is responsible for training up the next generation. The worst part is that because these elites don't acknowledge their elite status, they can never be held to account for their bad decisions. They can continue making mistake after mistake and nobody will correct them. And then they'll blame right-wingers, because of course they will.

Without responsible elites, we cannot have leaders that will guide the people into being virtuous. The people will not have a common reference point. They will left out in the wilderness. Worse yet, our current elites don't just leave people be; they guide them into becoming effeminate. Modern man is a slave to his own passions. He cannot do what he truly needs to do because he takes the easy way out. Just look at the number of men who use pornography. Just look at the number of men with massive amounts of credit card debt. Just look at the number of men who are obese. Just look at the number of men who are addicted to drugs. And on and on and on. Besides the havoc its vices wreck on spirituality, effeminacy also has a negative effect on discourse. People will avoid hard truths in favor of the comfortable lie. People are more afraid of "offending" now more than ever. The rise of political correctness and the effectiveness of meta-bigotry is proof of this.

An effective political movement is one that can address all of these problems: the lack of moral clarity, the fallacy of meta-bigotry, the irresponsibility of the ruling class, and the weakness of men. These are what are necessary if we are going to get anywhere. Because until we come up with a solution, woke neo-feudalism is going to be our future.

The Political Common Good

What do I want the Right to be like? I am, first and foremost, a devotee of the Classical Natural Law that started with Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, was inherited by the Christians, and was carried to its pinnacle by Scholastics like St. Thomas. The Classical Natural Law tradition defines goodness as the perfection of being and evil a privation of the good. All things tend towards perfection in some way: inanimate objects resist destruction, plants and animals strive to survive and reproduce, etc. They all desire participation in what is eternal, what is godlike. As Aristotle said, everything acts for an end. When a thing that strives for that end is impeded, this is an evil.

Moral goodness is a species of goodness that applies to the free-willed actions of rational creatures. To willingly use my faculties in a way that positively contradicts their natural purpose is evil. For example, since the purpose of my sexual faculties is to procreate, then purposely using these faculties in a way that could never lead to procreation is morally evil. This means that having sex with your sterile wife isn't a moral evil because it is not you that is causing her to be sterile, but using contraception (causing the wife to be sterile) or sodomy (doing something that could never lead to pregnancy even if there were no privations) are moral evils.

What does this mean for politics? Well, I believe that the purpose of politics is to pursue the political common good. The argument for this is found here, but in this paragraph, I will summarize. St. Thomas' definition of a common good is "a good that is one in number and is able to be shared by many without being diminished." For example, you might be tempted to say that health is a common good since being healthy is good for everyone. But while health in the abstract may be good, my good health is a good for me, not for you. A better example of a common good would be victory in battle for the soldiers in an army, or bringing the ship safely to port for the sailors on the ship. St. Thomas says that the purpose people come together to live in cities is to "live well together, a thing which the individual man living alone could not attain, and the good life is the life according to virtue." Therefore, a virtuous communal life is the purpose of the political society, and it's towards this goal that we must judge any kind of political authority.

I find today that our modern society seems very much against the idea of virtuous communal life. To give an example, much of our economic policy centers around maximizing gross domestic product (GDP), a number given to the amount of final goods sold. The thinking behind this is that, by maximizing the number of final goods bought and sold, we are satisfying the desires of the people. But one does not have a virtuous society by satisfying the desires of the masses! The economic policy, which is considered to be the driving force behind much of modern state action, is leading our leaders to do the exact opposite of what they should be doing. It's no wonder, then, that we seem to be ruled by a giant nanny state out to satisfy the needs of the people. It's no wonder that the state allows millions of its own citizens to become addicted to drugs and pornography. It's no wonder that we have all these social justice warriors that feel like their needs ought to be catered to. The guiding principle of the modern state is the satisfaction of the masses. Unsurprisingly, this makes everyone miserable, as any of the great natural law theorists of the past could've predicted.

Besides my classical natural law ethics, I'm also a communitarian. The Encyclopedia Britannica put it best: "Whereas the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment can be viewed as a reaction to centuries of authoritarianism, oppressive government, overbearing communities, and rigid dogma, modern communitarianism can be considered a reaction to excessive individualism, understood by communitarians as an undue emphasis on individual rights, leading people to become selfish or egocentric." Communitarianism is implicit in several premodern philosophies as well as moderate conservative philosophies like Edmund Burke's. It places emphasis the important function the community plays in the life of the individual. I believe in the ideas laid out in Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue. "What I am," he writes, "is in key part what I inherit, a specific past that is present to some degree in my present." Only through an inherited tradition fostered by a community will I be able to find myself, for shared traditions are how human beings are able to reason.

Philosophical communitarianism was born out of a critique of John Rawls, one of the most influential figures in modern political philosophy. Rawls presents an image of humans as atomistic individuals, one that communitarians rail against. We stress that individuals who are well-integrated into communities are better able to reason and act in responsible ways than isolated individuals, but add that if social pressure to conform rises to high levels, it will undermine the individual self. Communitarians uphold the importance of the social realm, and communities in particular, though they differ in the extent to which their conceptions are attentive to liberty and individual rights. Conservative communitarians like myself are opposed to the modern liberal project for the reasons I gave above (it doesn't prioritize virtue).

Lastly, I am an a Catholic integralist. In three sentences, Integralism "is a tradition of thought that, rejecting the liberal separation of politics from concern with the end of human life, holds that political rule must order man to his final goal. Since, however, man has both a temporal and an eternal end, integralism holds that there are two powers that rule him: a temporal power and a spiritual power. And since man’s temporal end is subordinated to his eternal end, the temporal power must be subordinated to the spiritual power." While I, as a follower of the natural law tradition, hold that the state should affirm at least a generic theism and that government policy should be consistent with the principles of natural law, as a Christian, I believe that the state should affirm Christianity and that government policy should be consistent with the principles of Catholicism. This is pretty obvious when one thinks about it for more than a moment: if morality is central to law, then wouldn't a Christian want the law to reflect their specific moral tenets?

Of course, just because I'm an Integralist doesn't mean I don't see problems with what Integralists say. For instance, Adrian Vermeule thinks that Catholics have a positive moral duty to let in an infinite number of Hispanic immigrants into America in order to transform the country into a Catholic integralist state. That's very stupid. Most of these integralists are products of academia that try to dress up views that their progressive peers would see as "theocratic" by advocating for insane ideas like that. Obviously, such a policy not only wouldn't work, but it would be immoral to subject the people of the United States to something so destructive to their culture. The idea is still being developed, as this website documents.

Conclusion

I believe that the Right wing must be able to discuss and develop these ideas further. We ought not be hampered by this notion of a "conservative identity" or somesuch. Being a traditionalist doesn't mean falling back on intellectual laziness or trying to bring back some past era. It means taking the ideals and wisdom of the past and moving forward with them while showing piety towards ones' ancestors. I will confess that, for all of my sincere radicalism, I do feel a love for the American vision. My ancestors came over from Central Europe in the early years of the twentieth century and settled down. They farmed the land and prayed to God. They fought in the wars. They paid homage to the Constitution, to the Founding Fathers, and the like. Anglo-American political project was flawed from the start, but just as you don't hate your family for their flaws, you don't hate your country for its flaws. A huge part of the problem I have with modern America is the complete lack of piety they show towards their traditions. How am I, the descendant of immigrants, a person whose religion was persecuted in this country, supposed to believe in America if the people whose ancestors built this country don't believe in it?

I don't want to destroy America and make it a terrible place for people who disagree with me and my idiosyncratic views. I am under no illusions that America will be made into some kind of Catholic integralist state. I just want my country to be the very best it can be. That's why I don't want to have my ideas implemented. I'd rather have them discussed in right-wing circles along with a bunch of others. Maybe it's a bit naive of me to think that discussion will cause the best ideas to win out over time, but I think that, in certain cases, that may just be the case. But it'd require a tireless commitment to truth and virtue. So, who's with me?
 
Last edited:

JagerIV

Well-known member
Yeah, I would say right now the left has much more firepower: they can enforce their will systematically, and systematically apply their violence, while the right lacks any way to systematically apply force.

This is why the left can apply more effective force punching Richard Spencer once in the face than a random Neo Nazi can shooting 4 or so people.

All the right can do with guns right now is shoot a couple of random grunts. Which doesn't matter.

They also have an immense amount of wealth, which represents an immense amount of potential firepower. Okay, "the right" owns, say 300 million guns. Say that's about $5,000 dollars worth of equipment per gun? Okay. So, those 300 million guns cost about $1.5 trillion dollars worth of equipment. This is an amount of money that the government is pefectly capable of deficit spending a year in peace time.

Matching the current right wing arrsonal is a small loan from Wall Street or China. Or just have the fed quickly print out a bit of money.

Guns are not nothing, and its valuable to have. Its necessary piece, but its one of the weaker parts of the ability to resist. The Right is overall far too law abiding to make effective use of their weaponry: the Virginia rally against gun control and its complete and utter failure has shown just how domesticated and harmless most gun owners are to the powers that be.

Now, if we could get a cultural/political change where those guns would be useful, having those guns will be good, but right now their politically irrelevant.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
If things get worse, those guns will be useful. They would have an absolute hell of a time trying to take them off a populace that would be, by that point, very concerned about an encroaching government. Do not estimate what a few hundred thousand armed and determined people can do. As for guns, the left, if they can keep control of the military, could possibly win that sort of war, but an armed insurgency that would rumble on for likely years is the very last thing they want (even if they don't know that).

However, I doubt it will come to that. If the right can get over its hump of "not organising" then it should be able to bring the Left's advance to a halt and perhaps turn it back.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
One problem we face about determining what the right wing should be is that the "right wing" is a coalition of different, sometimes wildly opposed ideas. A neo-con who wants the USA to to invade Iran and Syria is going to have different ideas for saving conservatism than a paleo-con who wants isolationism. A libertarian won't see eye to eye with a social conservative who wants to outlaw pornography. These diverse ideologies find common cause in the "right" because the threat of the left, which is more united and has a much clearer vision of the future, is so dire.

As Alathon said earlier in the thread, I think it that victory, if it's possible at all, comes down to sacrifice. The system is our foe and we must therefore abandon the comforts and privileges that the system provides. The left essentially controls every powerful institution in the Western world. The public schools, the universities, the big corporations, the banks, government agencies, the "deep state", the media, big tech companies, entertainment, and the list goes on. They have millions of people who depend on government aid and millions more who have jobs based on their wacky policies. They have legions of professional activists paid for with other people's money - including but not limited to college tuition and government agencies. Even the police, who the left claims to hate, serve as an armed escort for left wing rioters and terrorists - watching passively as the leftists destroy property and assault innocent citizens and only stepping in to arrest victims who fight back.

With all of that power in the hands of the extreme left, it would by folly to think that spending 5 minutes filling in bubbles once every two years is going to help that much. There are tens of millions of leftists whose livelihoods are based on furthering their power (and hundreds of millions more around the world who are waiting for our gates to open) who have access to the right's own money to further their goals, who in many cases can print money, often literally, to further their goals. If those diverse groups who oppose the left are going to stand a chance, they are going to have to realize that they have to do more than just vote. They are going to have to start actually living by their ideology.

We can all suggest big changes that the government should do to make our nations better, but here in the USA even with Trump in office we can't close the border, we can't stop leftists mobs from destroying our cities, we can't stop government agencies or megacorporations from using their power to oppress dissenters. So then how are we going to get some more radical right wing policy implemented? We aren't. We have essentially no institutional power, so we must think of political activism from an individual rather than an institutional basis.

What do I have in mind? Well, for one thing we can have kids. The ability to have kids is one thing that the government hasn't taken control of yet and amazingly, in most nations home schooling is still allowed. So don't just have kids, have lots of kids and don't send them to public school, home school them and don't let them watch TV if you can help it. When you do, make sure you know what they are watching and be ready to discuss or prohibit objectionable material. Don't give any more of your money to these huge leftist corporations than you need to. Live humbly, establish connections with your family, your friends, your community. Live for positive experiences, not material possessions. Be an example to that community, pass on your values to your children and to others who are close to you. Live off the grid as much as you can. Don't go to college or send your kids to college unless it is absolutely necessary.

Some of these ideas may seem extreme and not necessarily so useful, but our personal lives are what we can control. We don't have any institutions, so we have to work from the bottom up and I don't think we can succeed if we keep playing the left's game by the left's rules, continuing to give power and money to their institutions hoping to reform them instead of being corrupted by them.

If we start living our values, and passing those values to others on an individual level, then we can undermine the dominance that the left has over our lives. We can also live in accordance to our own values, which as I mentioned in the beginning of this post can be quite diverse, instead of trying to enact some "right wing" policy that none of us would agree on even if we had a chance to make it work.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
It's not the 'Muh Guns' it's the lack of organizing as stated earlier. People talking about Tanks versus AR-15's are missing the forest for the trees or whatever.

You dont take your AR-15 and shoot a tank rumbling down Main Street. If there was some (God Forbid) violent revolution of the Right Variety those 300 million guns won't be pointed at tanks but things like politicians, activists, media personalities, intellectuals and other officials who, unless they use tanks for their commute, would be vulnerable anywhere outside of their workplace in most cases. Most insurgencies have primary targets being collaborators and sympathizers for a reason, not storming the DC Green Zone en masse. So 'Muh Guns' can be very useful beyond LARPing if it's organized.

You could have commensurate police state actions but at worst law enforcement and the military are split ideologically. You can't trust the military or police to just follow orders if there's no clear at fault party or anything overwhelmingly obvious. And you can't just pay local contractors to protect you since they'd be of the same problem. Which means foreigners brought in to deal with the problem! 😁
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
I do agree with ShieldWife to an extent, that small actions really do matter. So much so, by changing your community you can change the world.

But the Right must gain political power, and then, rightly or wrongly, use that power to crowbar the Left out of the institutions and slam the doors shut on them getting back in. For this, you need a grassroots movement that could come in from outside the swamp, but herein we run into the Right's notorious problem of refusing to organise. If you can surmount that hump, some very serious changes can be made.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
It's not the 'Muh Guns' it's the lack of organizing as stated earlier. People talking about Tanks versus AR-15's are missing the forest for the trees or whatever.

You dont take your AR-15 and shoot a tank rumbling down Main Street. If there was some (God Forbid) violent revolution of the Right Variety those 300 million guns won't be pointed at tanks but things like politicians, activists, media personalities, intellectuals and other officials who, unless they use tanks for their commute, would be vulnerable anywhere outside of their workplace in most cases. Most insurgencies have primary targets being collaborators and sympathizers for a reason, not storming the DC Green Zone en masse. So 'Muh Guns' can be very useful beyond LARPing if it's organized.

You could have commensurate police state actions but at worst law enforcement and the military are split ideologically. You can't trust the military or police to just follow orders if there's no clear at fault party or anything overwhelmingly obvious. And you can't just pay local contractors to protect you since they'd be of the same problem. Which means foreigners brought in to deal with the problem! 😁
I agree with the targeted assassinations aspect.

Now apparently since everyone can dox each other with so little effort, a rightist insurgency would aim to target politicians, lawyers, leftist academics and media personnel, etc...

As well as attacks on economic and cultural targets. Simply shooting some raging leftist professor or vicious journalist would do little to change things in the grand scheme anyway. You’d need to actually seize power.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top