What Should The Right Wing Be?

You, like Tim Pool and people who call themselves moderates, just don't understand what the left and the right even are, or what they represent. There can be disagreement within the left and right, but the spectrum within them is not continuous between right and left, it's more up-vs-down, so to speak.

The questions they answer are yes or no, and deadly chaos hangs in the balance. They are not opinions, they are divergent assertions of black and white yes or no facts that govern how people should be allowed to exist to prevent mass death. One of them, therefore, is correct objectively, and one is incorrect. If you choose the wrong one, everyone dies.

Every time the left dominates a society we get a genocide. That's the one that's wrong.


If the fate of the world hangs in the balance and only people like you can stop it, why are you hanging here, typing in a board filled with people you've made clear you don't like and think are worthless? To be frank this isn't just you, this is my question to A LOT of people.
 

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
If the fate of the world hangs in the balance and only people like you can stop it, why are you hanging here, typing in a board filled with people you've made clear you don't like and think are worthless? To be frank this isn't just you, this is my question to A LOT of people.

Your comment predisposes that no one, once ignorant, can be made to see reality more clearly. You're essentially asking why I would Ever try to convince anyone of anything ever, as if no one could ever become convinced of anything. You may very well realize before it's too late just how correct I am about things, even Tim the fool Pool has been slowly dragged kicking and screaming away from his fantasies over the years.




Also I was in the original group this site was founded by and for. I'm not in here with you, you're in here with me.
 
Your comment predisposes that no one, once ignorant, can be made to see reality more clearly. You're essentially asking why I would Ever try to convince anyone of anything ever, as if no one could ever become convinced of anything. You may very well realize before it's too late just how correct I am about things, even Tim the fool Pool has been slowly dragged kicking and screaming away from his fantasies over the years.



What I'm saying is change doesn't come behind a keyboard or an avatar, people can whine and moan about the enemy all they want but people are eventually going to have to put the chatrooms down and be the change they want to be, and frankly I think 5-10+ years of this keyboard warrior junk has been more than plenty. "Viva revolution" and "76 will commence" again have become the new Rapture prophesies of our time and frankly it's getting real old real fast.

Also I was in the original group this site was founded by and for. I'm not in here with you, you're in here with me.

Fair enough. it's your space and your right to do as you see fit.
 
Last edited:

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
What I'm saying is
Ah so by "I have a question" you meant "I dont have a question I've already made up my mind"

What I'm saying is change doesn't come behind a keyboard or an avatar, people can whine and moan about the enemy all they want but people are eventually going to have to put the chatrooms down and be the change they want to be, and frankly I think 5-10+ years of this keyboard warrior junk has been more than plenty. "Viva revolution" and "76 will commence" again have become the new Rapture prophesies of our time and frankly it's getting real old real fast.
The classic "morale doesn't exist" thinking of the RTS player. Let me break something down for you here Sun Tzu, we're winning. Not like, you and me, I mean me and the people like me. Why would I not want to forestall a physical conflict when I'm winning the ideological one? Why would I want to arrest the process by which my enemy is getting weaker every year?

The Left is on the backslide in a major way. A civil war tomorrow would favor me more than a civil war today, because my hypothetical opponent is in the process of decaying.

Lets say I convince you that Gun Control is meaningless retardation. I havent just lost a potential enemy, I've actually gained an ally AND lost an enemy, which is worth more than losing two enemies.


Also, the actual revolution had two decades of political and idealogical conflict that built up to it, I have no idea why you think 10 years is a long preamble.
 

AnimalNoodles

Well-known member
Well, we have socialist versions of feminism already. How about... we don't have feminism?

Too late. Its like saying "why dont we get rid of gunpowder?"

And if right-wing militants and left-wing militants clash, who are the courts going to side with? It seems to me they side against groups like the Proud Boys.

Notice I placed the street cadre at the bottom. Why? because first we get our legal assets, our rightwing SPLC and rightwing NLG in place. Before we can accomplish anything we need an elite class of our own with an interest in funding and protecting our assets. With the backing of an elite class, a street cadre would be far better protected legally and socially. But first we need an elite class that supports its own.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
But first we need an elite class that supports its own.

It's funny, I think the media's long portrayed the majority of rich people as being supporters of the Republicans who arrogantly go on about free markets helping people and hard work

But turns out, not really, they love being Champagne Socialists
 

AnimalNoodles

Well-known member
2 and 3 are inherently contradictory. There is no right wing green movement, and that's because there is nothing to do for a right wing green movement, the current political balance on these matters is more strict regulated than a reasonable, right wing green movement would advocate for...

Please clarify. Im not sure what you are getting at.

4 is abuseable by economic incompetents, protectionism is a dangerous toy to give politicians, even if in some cases it is necessary to deal with all sorts of shenanigans from countries that play by completely different economic and political rules than the western ones.

Related to 3, dirigism is not the way to achieve the goal stated in it, even though the goal is agreeable. State directed industries, as shown in examples around the world, tend to not be flourishing world leaders in their areas, quite the opposite.

State and private partnerships work just fine. Variations of Dirigism are models used by japan and korea.

5, what do you mean?

The USA builds an effective system of state healthcare.

6 like in 2, doesn't exist, because there is no niche for it. More so, there shouldn't be, as there is zero ideological or practical reason for the right to want for women to have a separate identity and social, political or cultural movement inherently standing in opposition to men and their interests.
Women have a place on the right as fellow compatriots and citizens, not a special interest group.

Women embrace feminism in order to increase thier social status. This has created a feminism that greatly benefoits corporations by encouraging women to enter the workforce thus decreasing labour costs. In this feminism a womans value and status is reduced to her ability to generate GDP. It is demoralising, dehumanising and ultimately self defeating.

The fact is, barring some unforseen even feminism is here to stay. We need to create a feminism where women can find an increase is social status and esteem through more traditional avenues. This will decrease competition in the labour market, boost the fertility rate, drop the crime rate and improve the mental health of men, women and children.

7, to add to the above, would also be contradictory in 6, and pointless in light of other ideas.

No, there needs to be a vast reform of the laws dealing with men's issues. This will become a growing issue with time, and embracing it early will be of great benefit.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Please clarify. Im not sure what you are getting at.
What the hell would that green movement do or want, and how would you put that at peace with needs of reindustrialisation?
State and private partnerships work just fine. Variations of Dirigism are models used by japan and korea.
Maybye in Asia, with its culture and political system. In western world you get France at best. And French industry is not an example you want to aspire to, certainly not when you're doing better than that already.

The USA builds an effective system of state healthcare.
Effective or state, its unrealistic to expect both, even if it seems tempting as you have neither. There is a right wing solution to solve a lot of these problems that no one talks about - smacking the whole field with a massive club of deregulation.

Because whether state, private, or hybrid as it is now, that won't solve the problem of overpriced, supply strangled healthcare, just tinker with the question of who pays the overpriced bills that shouldn't exist in the first place and who's stuck with the business end of the shortages that should be filled.

Women embrace feminism in order to increase thier social status. This has created a feminism that greatly benefoits corporations by encouraging women to enter the workforce thus decreasing labour costs. In this feminism a womans value and status is reduced to her ability to generate GDP. It is demoralising, dehumanising and ultimately self defeating.

The fact is, barring some unforseen even feminism is here to stay. We need to create a feminism where women can find an increase is social status and esteem through more traditional avenues. This will decrease competition in the labour market, boost the fertility rate, drop the crime rate and improve the mental health of men, women and children.
Yes, its a culture war issue. If, say, conservative right would take over the media and cultural institutions and use them to advertise their ideas instead of glorifying feminism, following feminist tropes would be reducing one's social status, hence it would get less popular. However i have no idea why would you call such a change in cultural trends "feminism" despite the sheer confusion caused by it.

No, there needs to be a vast reform of the laws dealing with men's issues. This will become a growing issue with time, and embracing it early will be of great benefit.
Yes, feminism inspired legal changes need to go, absolutely. However there is no reason to tie it to labels that mean much more than just this, causing some completely unnecessary confusion.
 
Last edited:

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Everyone already has feminism. In today's world, there are the feminists, the radical feminists, and the people who won't achieve anything. Most of the people who will read this thread don't even realize that they're feminists. You have no hope of uprooting feminist ideology, you now have to undermine the idea that certain institutions have the best interests of women. Fetus trafficking wasn't scandalous for its ethics, it was morally sound by its internal logic, but because it stained the abortion industry's "medical service" optics for people to realize that they were an organ harvesting ring.

If you equate "feminism" with "respecting women," then sure, anyone who doesn't hate women is a feminist.

But I don't know how someone like me, who wants to implement a system wherein marriages are arranged between the prospective husband and his future bride's father could be a "feminist" in any real sense.

Too late. Its like saying "why dont we get rid of gunpowder?"
Could you elaborate on this logic? It doesn't make sense.

The point is moot because historically when right wing militants and left wing militants clash, you get lots of dead left wing militants and the courts are the least of your problems.
Left wingers have historically and reliably suffered untennable levels attrition when confronted with enemies capable of meaningful resistance.

If the right-wing militants all get put in jail, who do you think will win the attrition war?

Notice I placed the street cadre at the bottom. Why? because first we get our legal assets, our rightwing SPLC and rightwing NLG in place. Before we can accomplish anything we need an elite class of our own with an interest in funding and protecting our assets. With the backing of an elite class, a street cadre would be far better protected legally and socially. But first we need an elite class that supports its own.
If you can find right-wing lawyers that will let right-wing street militants go free, then go ahead. I don't think there are that many out there though.
 

AnimalNoodles

Well-known member
If you can find right-wing lawyers that will let right-wing street militants go free, then go ahead. I don't think there are that many out there though.


Give them elite cover and you will find the lawyers. There is already in place a covert legal structure that helps out dissidents.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
By the police? By the courts? By the legal system predicated on being opposed to militant right-wing groups?

Given how dire the situation would be by that point, what happens when these Right wing militant groups don't hand their guns over? The Left may suddenly be confronted with a problem all the institutional power in the world can't legislate away.

Anyone who says "the pen is mightier than the sword" is a fool. History is written in blood, with the battlefield as its parchment and the sword as its quill.
 

King Krávoka

An infection of Your universe.
Also feminism does not get to claim the very concept of egalitarianism. This is like when pinkos try to claim the concept of sharing. Feminism is a group you have to self identify as a part of. Most people, most women, do not identify as feminist.
Doesn't matter. The proposal was about arguing that the right should present itself as a force for the improvement and freedom of women's lives, my response is that everyone's already doing that regardless of cringy codifications.

The questions they answer are yes or no, and deadly chaos hangs in the balance. They are not opinions, they are divergent assertions of black and white yes or no facts that govern how people should be allowed to exist to prevent mass death. One of them, therefore, is correct objectively, and one is incorrect. If you choose the wrong one, everyone dies.
And describing yourself through the wing dichotomy legitimatizes the existence of the "genocidal"s as just a counterpart to yourself. If you value one wing as the sole future for humanity, then you have even more motivation than centrists for disbanding wingism.

But I don't know how someone like me, who wants to implement a system wherein marriages are arranged between the prospective husband and his future bride's father could be a "feminist" in any real sense.
I mentioned a third category.
 

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
And describing yourself through the wing dichotomy legitimatizes the existence of the "genocidal"s as just a counterpart to yourself. If you value one wing as the sole future for humanity, then you have even more motivation than centrists for disbanding wingism.
I do value one wing as the sole future for humanity. I do have motivation to dismantle the idea of political Wings.

I dont believe in the "wings" essentially, thats the thing, I don't believe in the proposed fundamental binary of political positions, or this "left right" spectrum, except insofar as there is a binary or spectrum between "correct" and "incorrect" i.e. someone can be more or less correct. If there is a spectrum of political philosophy along which some kind of admixture is valid, it is between Libertarianism and Patriotism, but the only valid political position left-to-right is affixed to the furthest point right. This sounds daunting to those who don't understand what the right is.

You're just going to have to accept that I'm going to render my ideas along a pattern that I believe the person I'm talking to at least has a chance of understanding. I'm not trying to concoct the most technically accurate textual representation of my political philosophy, I'm trying to be understood, because in many cases it's far more useful to be understood than to be grammatically exacting.
 

almostinsane

Well-known member
The fact is, barring some unforseen even feminism is here to stay. We need to create a feminism where women can find an increase is social status and esteem through more traditional avenues. This will decrease competition in the labour market, boost the fertility rate, drop the crime rate and improve the mental health of men, women and children.
Dude. You're not going to reorder society so women can't work. Women can work and have kids. We just need to change society so children are prized. The problem is that they're an afterthought right now.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Dude. You're not going to reorder society so women can't work. Women can work and have kids. We just need to change society so children are prized. The problem is that they're an afterthought right now.

I think things like expenses should be taken into account

There are families wherein both parents work, if only to do stuff like send their kids to a good school

But I think there are financial problems that come with both parents working, also kid may not be as well adjusted

It’s kinda radical, but maybe those mothers should start doing homeschooling for their kids with online stuff

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

Housekeeping or staying at home can’t be as stressful as a job, can it?
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
What I'm saying is change doesn't come behind a keyboard or an avatar, people can whine and moan about the enemy all they want but people are eventually going to have to put the chatrooms down and be the change they want to be, and frankly I think 5-10+ years of this keyboard warrior junk has been more than plenty. "Viva revolution" and "76 will commence" again have become the new Rapture prophesies of our time and frankly it's getting real old real fast.



Fair enough. it's your space and your right to do as you see fit.
Sure it does that's how the left did it. They convinced people and eventually they had most institutions.
Dude. You're not going to reorder society so women can't work. Women can work and have kids. We just need to change society so children are prized. The problem is that they're an afterthought right now.
Can doesn't mean should your wife working is a failure on your part in my opinion.(assuming her salary is used for anything beyond her playing.) That's my view anyway.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top