CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Someone really tired of this activism shit.
Who's taking the video and where's the black lady?
Someone really tired of this activism shit.
I don't know the randos.Who's taking the video and where's the black lady?
The majority of the country doesn't want their relatively quiet and peaceful lives to be disrupted. They don't want to have to flee and be internally displaced. They don't want to starve, or be under siege, they don't want themselves or their children to be sniping with AK-47 rifles in blasted out buildings or be targets for VBIEDS.
Which means they will tolerate a great deal simply for the sake of stability.
Which means that even if the left is institutionally supreme-the power of the country they rule will be hollow and decay to the point it finally collapses.
Though this could take a very long time. Perhaps a century or more.
Well in Chicago I recall reading they literally pulled up the bridge to prevent the rioting from reaching the swanky gentrified parts of the city.
Yeah, it doesn’t matter how much it fails on a continuous basis. Or if the propaganda the people are told is demonstrably false. Leftist controlled institutions are so structured to endure for a long time. Even in the face of failure.THAT is the biggest thing to fear regarding Far Leftism
Simply put, is the sheer level of resilience and stubborness it has regardless of continued failure
I think there was a call to allow movement to occur from one side of the bridge to the other, a politician or celebrity went there and even called for it to go down so they could cross
Though, that may have been another city
Yeah. This kind of thing is why I don't think there will be a civil war: "the right" will never be organized enough or willing to risk what they have to stop the takeover - the laws will be rewritten and the culture and halls of power will be purged so that the right has no political power or influence to challenge the left in any meaningful way.
The redneck in the woods of Georgia with their illegal guns will be just as much a threat to Democratic control of the State as the gang banger with his illegal gun is a threat to the democratic control of Detroit.
Detroit is the the blackpill that there is basically no level of terrible that will threaten democratic power once they get themselves properly fixed in place. We will see how bad California eventually get, but I'm not sure there will ever really be a point where California gets so bad that Democratic control of it will be threatened.
Gun ownership doesn’t matter if it doesn’t have organization and political objectives behind it.
You can be a veritable gun nut, clutching your AR-15, and be entirely impotent politically.
The powers that be don’t have to send the police to go after you-they send a team of psychologists to “help you”, or they let you stew in your own home content to let you clutch your gun and not take it outside.
To be sure they don’t want the challenge on their monopoly of violence anyway, but simply stocking up on guns without a political organization of which to make use of them-is just pointless.
@CarlManvers2019 a mod is free to make one, call it the future of our civilization or something.
Thousands of people marching armed in Virginia shows some clear organization and political objectives both. Watch the state and local elections there in November to see if that is sustained into something larger as well.
Oh, conservatives grasp this very well, and can (and have) worked very well in such a patronage based system. But conservatives have not been a meaningful force in American politics since 1783. The entirety of American politics since then has simply been an internal debate within liberalism between progressive liberals and classical liberals. And I would say classical liberals are indeed ideologically incapable of mounting an effective defense against any patronage based appeal to minority groups.Well in Chicago I recall reading they literally pulled up the bridge to prevent the rioting from reaching the swanky gentrified parts of the city.
And that‘s the thing-the anarchy will never be universal. So long as it’s contained it won’t threaten the Dems and their allies. That is the upper and middle class people who actually are in charge here.
The Dems don’t actually need to make things better for their constituents-minority or not. Dem politics is really actually quite ancient. It’s patronage-give goodies in exchange for support.
Which is why black, Hispanic and other such minority groups will never leave the Dem party in numbers that matter-the Dems give them free stuff. And will give them more when they complain.
In some ways, I’d say the Dems have grasped human psychology better than conservatives. People will act and think tribalistically, and will take alms and patronage goodies over self improvement if offered. If someone else is paying you freebies, you’d be a sucker to try and climb the ladder and reject them.
In Ancient Rome-politicians used the dole and handing out coins to beggars to build political bases. These people weren’t necessarily even grateful, but they knew where their bread was buttered. So they voted and acted accordingly.
Even so-leftist Dem rule is unsustainable even in your nightmare scenario. If only due to foreign powers which become more competitive, are more internally cohesive, and capable. And the fact that such an environment you describe will bring corruption and institutional rot like the worst of South America or Africa.
Which means that even if the left is institutionally supreme-the power of the country they rule will be hollow and decay to the point it finally collapses.
Though this could take a very long time. Perhaps a century or more.
*I’m not a group psychologist or anything. But it wouldn’t surprise me if there was some sort of bond or attachment(on the side of the recipient) formed through patronage. Which would explain the emotional gut level loyalty of people to the Dem party. Maybe humans are hardwired to be loyal/supportive of those that give them food/shiny things.
Excuse me, but what is your definition of conservatism?Oh, conservatives grasp this very well, and can (and have) worked very well in such a patronage based system. But conservatives have not been a meaningful force in American politics since 1783. The entirety of American politics since then has simply been an internal debate within liberalism between progressive liberals and classical liberals. And I would say classical liberals are indeed ideologically incapable of mounting an effective defense against any patronage based appeal to minority groups.
I have seen people say not on this site even that the republicans aren't even conservatives. They are just liberals that want to stay on the current accepted left consensus whereas democrats are liberals that want to push society even more left.Excuse me, but what is your definition of conservatism?
I have seen people say not on this site even that the republicans aren't even conservatives. They are just liberals that want to stay on the current accepted left consensus whereas democrats are liberals that want to push society even more left.
That's what conservatives are supposed to be though, they want to conserve present day society, it's literally in the name.I have seen people say not on this site even that the republicans aren't even conservatives. They are just liberals that want to stay on the current accepted left consensus whereas democrats are liberals that want to push society even more left.
Except they don't actually conserve, they just stall while in power and then don't roll anything back when they can. Modern conservatives lack the will to power that the left has had driving them to 'restructure' society as they see fit. It's just social liberalism in effect if not in rhetoric because the pushback is purely in words.That's what conservatives are supposed to be though, they want to conserve present day society, it's literally in the name.
Exactly what this poster says @GoldRangerExcept they don't actually conserve, they just stall while in power and then don't roll anything back when they can. Modern conservatives lack the will to power that the left has had driving them to 'restructure' society as they see fit. It's just social liberalism in effect if not in rhetoric because the pushback is purely in words.
Not a bad thing per se but it's completely ineffectual as a way to combat 'everything isracist, everything is sexist' and the unflinching desire and will to legislate along that line.