Election 2020 Election 2020: It's (almost) over! (maybe...possibly...ahh who are we kidding, it's 2020!)

[Bacle]

Again, are you really saying that it is sincerely impossible for 2.4% of the country's population to be never-Trump Republicans who would split their vote between a Republican candidate and Biden? Because that's all it takes for this outcome to be perfectly normal. For something like 5% of Republicans to be never Trumpers. That's it. 95% Republican support for Trump and we get the result we have. And that's exactly what polling was running at anyway.

I see once again you are ignoring the mounting evidence of election fraud and election interference, and trying to push the 'Biden won legitly' narrative to protect yourself if Biden is able to steal this election.

It won't save you or your job, when the Dems call for purges and harassment of Trump supporters or anyone considered 'Right Wing'.

The problem here is that RINOs are more an internal sabotaging force of the Democrats than actual republicans. They’re the neocon globalist yes men, best embodied by McCain and Romney, that bend over and take their losses with “dignity” and are obsessed with “compromise”.

Compromise here meaning giving the democrats 75% of what they want now, and handing over the rest later.

The party would be altogether healthier without the gentlemanly losers club dragging it down.

So much this.

I see a lot of neo-cons and Right leaning Fed employees who are all too willing to concede before any state has even certified their results, because they think being 'graceful losers' will keep thier paychecks coming in the face of Dems who want to destroy the GOP and the lives of Trump supporters.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

I fundamentally cannot understand why right wingers have this lose gracefully attitude. Where the hell did this come from?

I was of the left. I saw them discuss about hoping for old people to die or debating tactics to win or discussing how demographics will gain them eternal victory.

How the hell did this attitude of lose gracefully and surrender come into being?

How does one fight a war when you have this attitude.

 

[Aldarion]

I fundamentally cannot understand why right wingers have this lose gracefully attitude. Where the hell did this come from?

I was of the left. I saw them discuss about hoping for old people to die or debating tactics to win or discussing how demographics will gain them eternal victory.

How the hell did this attitude of lose gracefully and surrender come into being?

How does one fight a war when you have this attitude.

I think it comes from the very nature of conservativism. Conservare - to preserve, to stay the same. Conservatives have nothing to gain, they can only hope to defend, and so aggression and aggressive mentality are discouraged. Meanwhile Marxists have a clear goal - destruction of anything traditional, European, or sane - and act appropriately.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

I fundamentally cannot understand why right wingers have this lose gracefully attitude. Where the hell did this come from?

I was of the left. I saw them discuss about hoping for old people to die or debating tactics to win or discussing how demographics will gain them eternal victory.

How the hell did this attitude of lose gracefully and surrender come into being?

How does one fight a war when you have this attitude.

Elaborating on this.

The above is why I hold the "Muh guns"argument in contempt.

People like to fold to lose gracefully and we will get then next time or lets surrender, etc.

And I'm expected to believe that people with the above will rise up and use their guns to beat the left? Lol, the idea is laughable.

I can at least understand NRX people. They follow Moldbug and he and they generally subscribe to civilizational cycles hence not opposing the left means that the left and society which is left will wallow in their own corruption and infighting and collapse instead of being united to fight those that oppose them.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I think it comes from the very nature of conservativism. Conservare - to preserve, to stay the same. Conservatives have nothing to gain, they can only hope to defend, and so aggression and aggressive mentality are discouraged. Meanwhile Marxists have a clear goal - destruction of anything traditional, European, or sane - and act appropriately.

And that my friend is why conservatives always lose.

We do not go on the offense, we are not revolutionary, we even shy away from the concept of being reactionary. We merely preserve what is current or present.

That in 2020 AD means defending homosexual “marriage” and opposing the full scale enshrinement of transgenderism. In ten years it will mean opposing pedophilia while defending transgenderism. In thirty years it will mean defending pedophilia and opposing bestiality or necrophilia.

Conservatism is dialectically set to lose in the modernist framework of “Progress”, the best it can do is occasionally reverse the worst insanity, and put a break on leftist madness. It can not reverse it.

To actually reverse it would mean going on the offensive, it would mean abandoning the practice of conservatism while retaining its essential content, and becoming reactionary.

Or perhaps, outright embracing fascism. That is something more inherently revolutionary.

Perhaps we should abandon conservatism. As it is fated to eternally fail. We should embrace something else-a transformative politics, not merely a static politics.

 

[DarthOne]

I think it comes from the very nature of conservativism. Conservare - to preserve, to stay the same. Conservatives have nothing to gain, they can only hope to defend, and so aggression and aggressive mentality are discouraged. Meanwhile Marxists have a clear goal - destruction of anything traditional, European, or sane - and act appropriately.

I’d argue that the Conservatives do very much have a goal worthy of aggression; undoing the bullshit of the last few years/decades and making the West not-crazy.

 

[Duke Nukem]

 

[Deleted member 88]

Snip

Guns are only useful if you have an actual objective and aim to base their use on. “We’ll rise up”-when? “Uh when they come for our guns?” Even in a “knock on the door” nation wide scenario conservatives would yield, because well maybe we’ll win the next election, or it will be ruled unconstitutional. Conservatives are always hoping that next time things will turn out okay.

To use guns and the second amendment effectively, you have to one have actual organization, and too have a real idea of what you want to achieve? Neighborhood defense? Overthrowing the government? If so what do you plan on replacing it with?

Guns are tools, and conservatives fetishize them as having some atavistic power in themselves when they do not.

What you need is direction, an aim and the will to bring into being. Without that guns amount to fetishistic objects or totems. They have no practical value.

 

[Aldarion]

I’d argue that the Conservatives do very much have a goal worthy of aggression; undoing the bullshit of the last few years/decades and making the West not-crazy.

That is true. But the block of inherent mentality still remains.

And that my friend is why conservatives always lose.

We do not go on the offense, we are not revolutionary, we even shy away from the concept of being reactionary. We merely preserve what is current or present.

That in 2020 AD means defending homosexual “marriage” and opposing the full scale enshrinement of transgenderism. In ten years it will mean opposing pedophilia while defending transgenderism. In thirty years it will mean defending pedophilia and opposing bestiality or necrophilia.

Conservatism is dialectically set to lose in the modernist framework of “Progress”, the best it can do is occasionally reverse the worst insanity, and put a break on leftist madness. It can not reverse it.

To actually reverse it would mean going on the offensive, it would mean abandoning the practice of conservatism while retaining its essential content, and becoming reactionary.

Or perhaps, outright embracing fascism. That is something more inherently revolutionary.

Perhaps we should abandon conservatism. As it is fated to eternally fail. We should embrace something else-a transformative politics, not merely a static politics.

Conservativism will always fail, yes. I think you should know my opinion on that from my custom title, but that is something I will be writing on in more detail in the future. Basically, conservatives:
a) do not have a goal to progress towards, and are thus inherently more passive than progressives
b) always defend the current state and are thus inherently more passive than progressives
c) due to points a) and b), never go onto the offensive

That is why I consider the conservatives to be useful idiots of the Left. Meanwhile Commies have done a good job of convincing people that Conservatives are somehow RIght Wing, that division is Progressives - Moderates - Conservatives. In reality Conservatives are dead center (emphasis on dead), right wing are Traditionalists (Reactionaries), but who is traditionalist nowadays? Except for Muslims, that is. But actual Europeans? Almost nobody.

 

[Sailor.X]

Trump is a fighter and most of his supporters are too. The Santee will stand with him will you.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I’d argue that the Conservatives do very much have a goal worthy of aggression; undoing the bullshit of the last few years/decades and making the West not-crazy.

I think for that to be done properly, we need Traditionalists more than Conservatives. The latter is good, don't get me wrong. They will hit the breaks and stop the car going over the cliff. But the former will put the gear stick into reverse, which is what I think needs to happen to an extent. At the very least (with some bits and bobs carried over from today) we should put the clock back to 1913: before radicalism ruined the West.

 

[Deleted member 88]

We need to embrace what we can of modernity without its poisoned tree. There is no reason a healthy traditionalist society can not function with computers, cars, and space travel.

Archaeofuturism is a term I’ve heard of the French New Right.

That said, we need to dispense with the notion that within this current system we will ever have decisive lasting victory.

 

[Bacle]

I think for that to be done properly, we need Traditionalists more than Conservatives. The latter is good, don't get me wrong. They will hit the breaks and stop the car going over the cliff. But the former will put the gear stick into reverse, which is what I think needs to happen to an extent. At the very least (with some bits and bobs carried over from today) we should put the clock back to 1913: before radicalism ruined the West.

No, 'traditionalism' will not save the US from the Far-Left, the corporate whores, or the neo-cons, nor will reactionaries do anything useful.

Right-leaning Libertarianism can fight the battle that we need to win, and fight it far better that the Far-Right and their ideas can.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Right leaning libertarianism is fucking useless. Libertarians are routinely deplatformed from the big corporations that they routinely fellate.

They have absolutely no moral vision beyond “man I want to fuck, smoke weed and shoot my AR-15”.

Truly deep and inspiring politics there.

Libertarianism is entirely compatible with the current order and serves as a handmaiden to it.

Like Holy Shit, there were libertarians protecting BLM/Antifa rioters because “muh government be bad”

And then attacked by their “allies”.

 

[StormEagle]

No, 'traditionalism' will not save the US from the Far-Left, the corporate whores, or the neo-cons, nor will reactionaries do anything useful.

Right-leaning Libertarianism can fight the battle that we need to win, and fight it far better that the Far-Right and their ideas can.

My underlying problem with the libertarians, is I view them as being far to friendly with the corporations that are actively fighting against the right wing of this country. They also have a problem of aiming their ambitions higher than reasonable. They should be focusing on at least building a strong local party, maybe taking a state legislature or two, before aiming for the highest political office in the land.

I, personally speaking, cannot view them as a legitimate replacement for conservatism because of that.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

No, 'traditionalism' will not save the US from the Far-Left, the corporate whores, or the neo-cons, nor will reactionaries do anything useful.

Right-leaning Libertarianism can fight the battle that we need to win, and fight it far better that the Far-Right and their ideas can.

I have libertarian leanings, but you lot don't organise for whatever reason, be it pathological distrust of authority or "I just want to grill." In the era of mass movements, you've sentenced yourselves to irrelevance with that stance.

 

[Sailor.X]

Take a looky at the crowd.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Organic support is very encouraging, that I will say. It’s good to see Trump is able to mobilize his supporters in force.

 

[Aldarion]

No, 'traditionalism' will not save the US from the Far-Left, the corporate whores, or the neo-cons, nor will reactionaries do anything useful.

Right-leaning Libertarianism can fight the battle that we need to win, and fight it far better that the Far-Right and their ideas can.

Libertarians are big part of the reason for the mess. They basically went "all deregulation", without understanding that:
1) individual always loses against the group. Libertarians are those guys from Risa, Progressives are the Borg Collective. Who do you think will win?
2) total freedom also removes the tradition and the borders. If you remove tradition, people are groundless, and are easy to manipulate - and will seek safety, which means socialism, laws and totalitarian state. If you remove borders, this just enables growth of supranational entities which are far more dangerous for individual freedom than a nation-state ever could be.
3) total freedom also means total freedom for the guys who want to take any and all freedom you have away from you... that is, the Left.

Only possible answer is traditionalism... Dark Enlightenment, Neoreaction, but only if put into practice. Paleoconservativism, if you don't have any better ideas, but that is the newest thing that should be acceptable.

 

[DarthOne]

I think for that to be done properly, we need Traditionalists more than Conservatives. The latter is good, don't get me wrong. They will hit the breaks and stop the car going over the cliff. But the former will put the gear stick into reverse, which is what I think needs to happen to an extent. At the very least (with some bits and bobs carried over from today) we should put the clock back to 1913: before radicalism ruined the West.

Good point.