Five minutes of hate news

[Bacle]

And once again we see the new populist right being ignorant of history and blaming the old conservatives for losses they had no way at the time to counter, and in fact saw how they lost and took efforts to reverse.

What am I talking about? Obscenity laws. You know how those were lost? It wasn't through some obscure beuracractic nonsense or the long march through the institutions, no, obscenity laws were systematically weakened by the US Supreme Court starting with, of course, the Progressive Warren court in the 1950s and continuing up until the 1990s. In fact, the continual weakening of obscenity laws was one of the reasons for the Conservative movement that began AS A REACTION to the Progressive movements of the 1960s to focus on the Court.

But reversing and capturing the Supreme Court was a long term project. They couldn't, say, use the scorched earth and aggressive tactics the new right seems to love and say should be used. They couldn't, for instance, start impeaching Supreme Court justices since, after all, Republicans (to say nothing of Conservatives) never controlled both chambers of Congress until the 1990s (and by the time they DID the court capture project was far enough along there was no need and you even began seeing reversals of the weakening of obscenity laws). No, rather they worked with what they had, which was usually the Presidency and narrow Senate majorities that enabled them to, in the long term, remake the Court.

And you know what? IT WORKED, but once again they are given no credit and instead damned for NOT DOING ENOUGH!

You do realize railing against the loss of obscenity laws doesn't help your argument for supporting the efforts of the 'old right', right?

This is once again focusing on an effectively meaningless (outside the tradcon/prude-right) virtue signalling and 'why aren't the youngin's grateful for how powerless we've shown ourselves to be' whining by people who know their ideology works to slowly to effectively counter the progressives in real time.

It took decades to just get a conservative majority on SCOTUS, and that's only likely to last till the next GOP-picked justice dies or is forced out via 'retirement'. The 'old right' finally got the RvW win they wanted for decades via SCOTUS, and some 2A wins as well, at the cost of massive, massive amount of burned social/cultural capital outside the diehard GOP for years (basically since Bush Jr.) to get those.

All while the Left has only accelerated the changes they desire and shown how very far they will go to achieve what they desire, Constitution, laws, and biology be damned.

It is not the 'old right' who will be making the decisions for the new right in the future, and fossils who's time and competency has passed need to know when to bow out, just like new blood needs to get better about filtering grifters and legit racists out of it.

 

[Aldarion]

Me thinks that the second of these tweets applies pretty well to the first tweet, as it extends well beyond defense rights. "Bro c'mon bro just a little curtailment of your speech rights bro just a tiny abrogation of your constitutional rights bro c'mon bro I'll even pretend to be a conservative bro don't be like that bro"

The idea that not enough government is why the GOP is losing always struck me as hilarious. No, too much government is why you are losing. You've set up the institutions for the leftists to march into. Instead, tear those institutions down. If you create more institutions, the left gets more institutional power.

Actually, he does have a point in that if government is already here, then conservatives should use it to try and remove Leftist influence from media, education and all other aspects of life. Because Left sure as hell will do it to them.

 

[Cherico]

Actually, he does have a point in that if government is already here, then conservatives should use it to try and remove Leftist influence from media, education and all other aspects of life. Because Left sure as hell will do it to them.

Not will already has done so, you can bitch about how some one will do X to you if you do X if they have been doing X to you for over a decade.

 

[S'task]

You do realize railing against the loss of obscenity laws doesn't help your argument for supporting the efforts of the 'old right', right?

This is once again focusing on an effectively meaningless (outside the tradcon/prude-right) virtue signalling and 'why aren't the youngin's grateful for how powerless we've shown ourselves to be' whining by people who know their ideology works to slowly to effectively counter the progressives in real time.

It took decades to just get a conservative majority on SCOTUS, and that's only likely to last till the next GOP-picked justice dies or is forced out via 'retirement'. The 'old right' finally got the RvW win they wanted for decades via SCOTUS, and some 2A wins as well, at the cost of massive, massive amount of burned social/cultural capital outside the diehard GOP for years (basically since Bush Jr.) to get those.

All while the Left has only accelerated the changes they desire and shown how very far they will go to achieve what they desire, Constitution, laws, and biology be damned.

It is not the 'old right' who will be making the decisions for the new right in the future, and fossils who's time and competency has passed need to know when to bow out, just like new blood needs to get better about filtering grifters and legit racists out of it.

Where was I railing against the obscenity laws? I merely explained the actual HISTORY behind the erosion of those laws and how it played into the larger Conservative project to remake the Supreme Court. Go quote the person who actually was making that complaint and engage with them, rather than transferring the argument you have with them to me, who's a safer target to engage with since you know I am both more polite and more sympathetic to your positions than the person who originally brought the topic up.

In other words, I'm not going to engage with the strawman you set up, you want to argue about it, go quote @The Immortal Watch Dog and take up your argument with him. I was just complaining about the new right's ignorance of history and blameshifting.

 

[Abhorsen]

Actually, he does have a point in that if government is already here, then conservatives should use it to try and remove Leftist influence from media, education and all other aspects of life. Because Left sure as hell will do it to them.

No. Because the default beaurocrat is a lefty. You cannot use government power for conservative ends, as history plainly shows.

Meanwhile, Thatcher? She knew exactly what to do while in power: reduce the government and bring freedom. She massively shrunk the size of the British government, leading to a huge shift away from the soft socialism of Britain. Because without the club that is government, conservatives win. But in a battle of clubs, conservatives lose.

 

[Bacle]

Where was I railing against the obscenity laws? I merely explained the actual HISTORY behind the erosion of those laws and how it played into the larger Conservative project to remake the Supreme Court. Go quote the person who actually was making that complaint and engage with them, rather than transferring the argument you have with them to me, who's a safer target to engage with since you know I am both more polite and more sympathetic to your positions than the person who originally brought the topic up.

In other words, I'm not going to engage with the strawman you set up, you want to argue about it, go quote @The Immortal Watch Dog and take up your argument with him. I was just complaining about the new right's ignorance of history and blameshifting.

And once again we see the new populist right being ignorant of history and blaming the old conservatives for losses they had no way at the time to counter, and in fact saw how they lost and took efforts to reverse.

What am I talking about? Obscenity laws. You know how those were lost? It wasn't through some obscure beuracractic nonsense or the long march through the institutions, no, obscenity laws were systematically weakened by the US Supreme Court starting with, of course, the Progressive Warren court in the 1950s and continuing up until the 1990s. In fact, the continual weakening of obscenity laws was one of the reasons for the Conservative movement that began AS A REACTION to the Progressive movements of the 1960s to focus on the Court.

But reversing and capturing the Supreme Court was a long term project. They couldn't, say, use the scorched earth and aggressive tactics the new right seems to love and say should be used. They couldn't, for instance, start impeaching Supreme Court justices since, after all, Republicans (to say nothing of Conservatives) never controlled both chambers of Congress until the 1990s (and by the time they DID the court capture project was far enough along there was no need and you even began seeing reversals of the weakening of obscenity laws). No, rather they worked with what they had, which was usually the Presidency and narrow Senate majorities that enabled them to, in the long term, remake the Court.

And you know what? IT WORKED, but once again they are given no credit and instead damned for NOT DOING ENOUGH!

Sounds to me like you thought obscenity laws were a good thing, and mourn their loss.

This isn't about you being a 'safer target' (I'm not afraid of IWD, I just think he's less culturally blind than you), it's about you showing how culturally and PR blind you are by acting like the loss of the obscenity laws was a bad thing and think 'setting the record straight while obliquely defending obscenity laws'; the Right should not have been fighting for them in the first place and it is part of why the Right get's smeared as Evangelical prudes by a lot of society these last couple decades or more.

This is one area where the old right's failures, failures which were good for the rest of society except the Evangelical prudes in the GOP, and some illusions of the 'new rights' grifters and loons just happens to overlap.

New prudishness is just as foolish as old prudishness, it's just the new prudes will end up controlling the GOP and Right compared while the old prudes fade away.

 

[Blasterbot]

@S'task the right would not have gotten the presidency without the populist right in 2016. like him or hate him Trump was able to reach people who never voted before. people completely disillusioned with the dems and the reps. the conservatives need to understand that. they need to understand that trying to excise the populists is going to lose them a huge part of their base.

Millenials grew up thinking that the right is composed entirely of church marms and satanic panic sorts. They never learned of the politics of the 90s and that is something that people need to put effort into teaching. Zoomers are only slightly more right wing on some issues than millenials. Bluntly I think that has more to do with liberal women aborting more kids in the early 2000s than any real success on the part of conservatives.

Conservatives in my estimation learned how to resist the pull of the left but never learned how to actually push their ideas. It doesn't even have to be from the state. but that is what needs to happen. Conservatives need to actually teach their values to the younger generation and not just keep their heads down to plug away at a job working for someone who will fire them if they express wrong think.

 

[Captain X]

And once again we see the new populist right being ignorant of history and blaming the old conservatives for losses they had no way at the time to counter, and in fact saw how they lost and took efforts to reverse.

What am I talking about? Obscenity laws. You know how those were lost? It wasn't through some obscure beuracractic nonsense or the long march through the institutions, no, obscenity laws were systematically weakened by the US Supreme Court starting with, of course, the Progressive Warren court in the 1950s and continuing up until the 1990s. In fact, the continual weakening of obscenity laws was one of the reasons for the Conservative movement that began AS A REACTION to the Progressive movements of the 1960s to focus on the Court.

But reversing and capturing the Supreme Court was a long term project. They couldn't, say, use the scorched earth and aggressive tactics the new right seems to love and say should be used. They couldn't, for instance, start impeaching Supreme Court justices since, after all, Republicans (to say nothing of Conservatives) never controlled both chambers of Congress until the 1990s (and by the time they DID the court capture project was far enough along there was no need and you even began seeing reversals of the weakening of obscenity laws). No, rather they worked with what they had, which was usually the Presidency and narrow Senate majorities that enabled them to, in the long term, remake the Court.

And you know what? IT WORKED, but once again they are given no credit and instead damned for NOT DOING ENOUGH!

I'm not sorry to have seen anti-obscenity laws go. For one thing, they were poorly defined, which made them easy to abuse.

 

[bintananth]

I'm not sorry to have seen anti-obscenity laws go. For one thing, they were poorly defined, which made them easy to abuse.

Many of them were just censorship targeting stuff prudes don't like by another name.

 

[Bigking321]

Gotta be honest between that and what we currently have... I'd take that.

I really don't like where we are now. Condeming drag queen groomer shows brought to kids by school trips shouldn't be controversial. I'll take being called a prude if it keeps those freaks away from kids and keeps our schools from grooming them.

 

[Jormungandr]

No. Because the default beaurocrat is a lefty. You cannot use government power for conservative ends, as history plainly shows.

Meanwhile, Thatcher? She knew exactly what to do while in power: reduce the government and bring freedom. She massively shrunk the size of the British government, leading to a huge shift away from the soft socialism of Britain. Because without the club that is government, conservatives win. But in a battle of clubs, conservatives lose.

People vilified and still vilify her like how TDS are with Trump.

There's even a fucking Doom wad where you have to descend into "Hell" (England) to destroy her.


I'm not sure if it was meant to be satire or if the author was just as unhinged as typical Lefties are.

 

[Aldarion]

No. Because the default beaurocrat is a lefty. You cannot use government power for conservative ends, as history plainly shows.

Meanwhile, Thatcher? She knew exactly what to do while in power: reduce the government and bring freedom. She massively shrunk the size of the British government, leading to a huge shift away from the soft socialism of Britain. Because without the club that is government, conservatives win. But in a battle of clubs, conservatives lose.

You have completely missed what I was saying. Government is not where the Left draws its power from, not anymore. Sure, having the government on their side helps. But Margaret Thatcher? I really don't get that Thatcher worship among conservatives, considering how useless she was in the end. Today, mere thirty years after her rein as a Prime Minister, British Conservative Party is essentially competing with the Liberals in who is going to be more leftist. UK has been ruled by de-facto Communists since 1998. at the very least, though that was driven in large part by the European Union. And the reason why is precisely what my point is: having control of the government is useless, reducing government is useless, unless you use it to take control of other centres of power. Because government is not where the power lies. Hasn't been for decades at least. Power is in the media - so-called "democracy" is really the rule by the banks and the media, and both of these are leftist by default. You can dismantle the government as much as you want to, but if you don't control these two, everything you do is useless.

Of course, the Left knows this. And so when somebody attempts to use the government to reduce their influence (e.g. as Tudjman did in Croatia), he is immediately attacked and villified. Some people here even suspect Tudjman had been poisoned because he was a threat, but that is neither here nor there. Point here is, if you focus on reducing influence of government alone, you are essentially leaving the Left an open space to use the rest of their arsenal. But if you don't reduce the government, you still have to reduce the Left's arsenal or else you get government taken away from you.

 

[Yinko]

so-called "democracy" is really the rule by the banks and the media, and both of these are leftist by default.

I'm kind of on board about the government not being a strong center of power, but the banks and the media aren't that strong either. The media has been dying a slow death since Biden took office. You can say that YouTube is the new media, but whenever they ban a popular commentator they hemorrhage viewership. The banks are even weaker, as they rely on the government. The universities have also been losing attendance rates, prestige and money for years now, especially with the loss of the Chinese market.

I'd call these, together, a coalition of weak powers. The only issue is that the powers which oppose them are even weaker and seizing any one of these is ineffective. There isn't one dark lord you need to defeat, not just one weak point, there are hundreds of weak points but each one is too worthless to bring down the edifice.

 

[King Arts]

No. Because the default beaurocrat is a lefty. You cannot use government power for conservative ends, as history plainly shows.

Meanwhile, Thatcher? She knew exactly what to do while in power: reduce the government and bring freedom. She massively shrunk the size of the British government, leading to a huge shift away from the soft socialism of Britain. Because without the club that is government, conservatives win. But in a battle of clubs, conservatives lose.

Man what are you smoking can I have some of that good Libertarian ganja?
Thatcher was a failure she is hated by the masses to this day, her policies are not popular. The British government is more intrusive in people's civil liberties than many other European states with a larger government like France. Hell you got a loicence for that knife guvna?

However I have mixed feelings about her.

 

[Aldarion]

I'm kind of on board about the government not being a strong center of power, but the banks and the media aren't that strong either. The media has been dying a slow death since Biden took office. You can say that YouTube is the new media, but whenever they ban a popular commentator they hemorrhage viewership. The banks are even weaker, as they rely on the government. The universities have also been losing attendance rates, prestige and money for years now, especially with the loss of the Chinese market.

I'd call these, together, a coalition of weak powers. The only issue is that the powers which oppose them are even weaker and seizing any one of these is ineffective. There isn't one dark lord you need to defeat, not just one weak point, there are hundreds of weak points but each one is too worthless to bring down the edifice.

I'm not sure I'd call them weak. Mental prison is far more difficult to break than a physical one, in part because it is difficult to notice in the first place. And that is precisely what the Left does.

Trends you have noted do give hope, but so long as no viable alternative is present, Left will stay in power.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

The idea that not enough government is why the GOP is losing always struck me as hilarious. No, too much government is why you are losing. You've set up the institutions for the leftists to march into. Instead, tear those institutions down. If you create more institutions, the left gets more institutional power

Pretty much, the problem is that the right has fialed to actually reduce the size of the government.

If they can succeed in shutting down three letter agencies or busting up the federal bureaucracy or successfully oppose restrict act both sides of this might have better legs to stand on.

 

[Yinko]

Trends you have noted do give hope, but so long as no viable alternative is present, Left will stay in power.

There is the argument that the Left/Right divide is actually a cultural divide between the college educated and the non-college educated. If that's the case then the decline in college attendance predicts the decline in the power of that culture, as does the rise of AI automation, which seems to be picking off industries occupied by college professionals way before those of workmen.

 

[Abhorsen]

Government is not where the Left draws its power from, not anymore.

It's where they exercise it, and cultivate it from. It always has been. From the bureaucrats to the colleges, almost all of their power derives from government.

UK has been ruled by de-facto Communists since 1998.

The UK was communist prior to Thatcher, complete with government run industry being the norm accepted by both parties. Government owned the mines, the railways, etc. 9% of employment was by government. After her, it was 2%. In fact, her deregulation model basically controlled Blair as well. Ending nationalization was a huge step forward for capitalism and against communism.

Eventually, traditional toryism retook over, and the conservative party stopped it's flirtation with american conservatism under Thatcher, and resumed being european conservatives, who also believe in big government with all of its problems.

Point here is, if you focus on reducing influence of government alone, you are essentially leaving the Left an open space to use the rest of their arsenal. But if you don't reduce the government, you still have to reduce the Left's arsenal or else you get government taken away from you.

The government is their primary arsenal. That's the thing you are forgetting. The government is both their power and their ends. Everytime the government does not have power, they use their (much less powerful) outside government power to campaign for more government, then once in power, use government to give government more power.

Man what are you smoking can I have some of that good Libertarian ganja?
Thatcher was a failure she is hated by the masses to this day, her policies are not popular. The British government is more intrusive in people's civil liberties than many other European states with a larger government like France. Hell you got a loicence for that knife guvna?

However I have mixed feelings about her.

She was elected, what was it, 3 times straight? And she radically reduced government power in Britain (which is why she gets hatred). Don't get me wrong, the UK is far from free, but it was worse prior to Thatcher. She privatized a ton of government monopolies.


In general, all your arguments about the current Tory party sucking are correct, but what you don't realize is that Britain was so much worse prior to Thatcher. It was a straight up socialist state.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

The problem right now isn't low energy conservatives anyway.

It's the neocons and rinos. Communists by any other name that infiltrated the party and made it even worse and more hostile to its base than ever before.

 

[Abhorsen]

The problem right now isn't low energy conservatives anyway.

It's the neocons and rinos. Communists by any other name that infiltrated the party and made it even worse and more hostile to its base than ever before.

Eh, depends if you are talking about Europe or the Americas. Most of european conservatism has basically been the democrat party equivalent, and their opposition is the progressive leftists. They dream of being as based as neocons and rinos, which is just pathetic (with Thatcher the one major exception).

Never forget, as bad as the US is, most of Europe is a million times worse.