Come on, guys!!! You've seen America's future. Now do the necessary.

DiscussãoPolitical Conservatives

Entre no LibraryThing para poder publicar.

Come on, guys!!! You've seen America's future. Now do the necessary.

1Doug1943
Editado: Out 1, 2020, 6:23pm

Essa mensagem foi considerada abusiva por vários usuários e não mais será mostrada. (mostrar)
Imagine Democratic administrations in power, nationally and in most of the states, and in all of the big cities, when this sort of thing happens again. They will grovel, beg, tie the hands of the police and military (which they will have tried to hollow out via appointments of politically-correct personnel). But electoral demographics make that inevitable in the near future. Don't kid yourself.

So ... get that AR15, two thousand rounds of ammunition, and a dozen magazines, while you can. It won't cost more than a thousand dollars. Get a set of two or three if you can afford it.

Then, come to CivilianDefenseForce.Org to link up with fellow patriots.

The plunge of America into decadence and chaos is a tragedy of world-historic proportions. It's a generations-long setback for liberal democracy the world over.

But we have to face reality.

2Trelew
Jan 12, 2:27pm

"The plunge of America into decadence and chaos is a tragedy of world-historic proportions."
You called it, Doug. Well done.

3Doug1943
Jan 13, 8:50am

Hmmm... wonder what my message actually said to get multiple users to flag it. It's a shame to see LibraryThing joining the general Leftwing McCarthyite hysteria though.

4Kuiperdolin
Jan 13, 4:00pm

That's a good point.

5bohemima
Jan 13, 5:29pm

It’s a shame anyone on LT would have a call to arms.

6prosfilaes
Jan 13, 6:44pm

>3 Doug1943: The TOS says
"LibraryThing may not be used for any illegal activity."
"LibraryThing may not be used to injure, threaten, stalk, impersonate, or harass someone."

Tim gets the final rules on how widely the rules are read, but it's hard to imagine any legal, not injuring, threatening or harassing use of an AR-15 and two thousand rounds of ammunition, especially when you precede that with "Imagine Democratic administrations".

>1 Doug1943: It's a generations-long setback for liberal democracy the world over.

But if you have to destroy democracy in the US, that's what you have to do, eh?

But electoral demographics make that inevitable in the near future.

By electoral demographics, you mean that Republicans currently don't have a majority among the US population, and at least of 2021, the political lines aren't drawn in such a way to give them quite enough force to take the Electoral College or Senate. That is, how dare the Republicans have to participate in a democracy!

As a solid Democrat, I never see it coming about, nor really hope for that. Either the Republicans will get it together and stop appealing only to an embittered minority, or they will go the way of the Democratic-Republicans, the Federalists and the Whigs, and some other party will rise to take their place.

7Doug1943
Fev 4, 4:07pm

It's funny to see people who believe that ownership of a firearm automatically means advocacy of agressive violence. We really are two nations. There is indeed a lot of aggressive violence in America today -- dozens, hundreds, are killed in the 'inner city' every week, mainly Democrat voters unless they're too drugged up to vote -- in fact, since the BurnLootMurder and AntiFa riots, the murder rate has gone up by fifty percent in many of our cities. The police probably feel that it's not worth intervening, and I can't blame them.

It's not conservatives doing the killing. It wasn't conservatives who rioted this year and burned down police stations, while those few rioters who were arrested had their bails paid by Democrat politicians.

It wasn't a conservative who murdered Trump supporter Aaron Danielson in cold blood, an act applauded by the AntiFa mob in Portland and approved of by leftist academics elsewhere.

Things are changing in America. As we slide off our position as World Number One -- with the dollar perhaps becoming no longer the world's reserve currency, with possibly profound implications for our economy -- we can expect huge internal stresses within America. We have an angry underclass that whose condition will not be changed by Democrat rule -- just as it wasn't by Democrat rule for decades in all of America's big cities.

No one knows the future, but patriots should prepare for the worst. Get that AR15 and enough ammunition to be useful, join up with like-minded neighbors and get some training in how to deal with emergencies, including repelling an armed mob. Call it a Neighborhood Defense Group. There are already plenty of established groups doing this, so join one of the existing ones if it's available. Of course you will have informants/provocateurs, so never say anything that can be construed by a liberal/progressive jury as the advocacy of commission of a felony. Strictly self-defense.

Patriots under the age of 35 who have not yet done their military service should enlist in the National Guard. And Neighborhood Defense Groups should establish the closest possible relations with the local police and military.

Don't be fooled by liberal hypocrisy. When a mob stormed and occupied the Wisconsin State Capitol building ten years ago, Nancy Pelosi congratulated them. When AntiFa and similar groups arm themselves engage in military-style training, our liberal friends look the other way.

Armed self-defense is a good old American tradition. When I was in unversity nearly sixty years ago, I helped raise money for an armed self defense group made up of Southerners (where I am from)-- our slogan on campus was "Every Dime Buys a Bullet!" and it made the liberals wet their pants even then. (Whoa, what inflation has done! Bullets cost a lot more now. Nonetheless, they're still affordable. Get them while you can.). And I delivered this money in person. These Southerners were good men, many of them veterans.

We need to emulate them today.

8John5918
Fev 4, 11:49pm

>7 Doug1943:

Doug, you haven't begun to answer >6 prosfilaes:'s point. The recent US election demonstrated that the Republican party is not supported by a majority of the US electorate, and demographic shifts are likely to make its vote deficit even larger in the future. To most sane and democratically-minded people the answer is for the Republican party to do some internal soul-searching and attract more voters so that it can win enough votes in a future election. To you, apparently, the answer is to stock up on weapons and ammunition.

Armed self-defense is a good old American tradition

You're living in the past. Research shows that active and organised nonviolent resistance is more effective than armed conflict. I suggest you have a look at Why Civil Resistance Works by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan. Examining hundreds of conflicts over more than a century they found nonviolence to be twice as successful as violence, and that a nonviolent struggle was more likely to lead to a peaceful and democratic post-struggle society. And I presume that those of you apparently calling for a civil war have never lived through one?

Patriots

Your inference is that patriots are only gun-owning right wingers (my apologies if that is not what you are implying). You realise of course that there are millions of patriots who love their country but disagree with you on both politics and gun ownership?

I'm not a political conservative so my apologies for posting in this group, but I've interacted with you before on other groups and I would be interested in your response.

9prosfilaes
Fev 5, 4:35am

>7 Doug1943: It's funny to see people who believe that ownership of a firearm automatically means advocacy of agressive violence.

I have no objection to hunting. I can debate the wisdom of widespread carrying of weapons for personal self-defense but I have family members who do it. But it's clear you're not talking about either; you're talking about a semi-automatic rifle in a political context.

It wasn't conservatives who rioted this year

This year? 2021? That's objectively false.

Don't be fooled by liberal hypocrisy. ... When AntiFa and similar groups arm themselves engage in military-style training, our liberal friends look the other way.

This group uses a photo of Ronald Reagan, who signed the Mulford Act in California, banning the carrying of loaded weapons in public in California, in order to stop the Black Panthers from carrying guns in public.

We have an angry underclass that whose condition will not be changed by Democrat rule

Do you believe in liberal democracy? Then make your case to them. Stop saying "electoral demographics make that inevitable in the near future" and talking about buying guns; instead, actually try to reach all the people who are voting Democrat. Pitch your concerns at the majority of Americans; otherwise, you're just giving lip service to liberal democracy.

10Doug1943
Fev 5, 1:47pm

>5 bohemima: Ah, the phrase a 'call to arms' is ambiguous. It could mean 'Get your gun and kill someone now,' as that AntiFa supporter did in Portland this year, murdering a Trump supporter in cold blood, to the applause of the rest of the AntiFa vermin there, and with the approval of leftist academics.

I don't mean that. I mean that every patriot should own the means of effective self-defense, when the human garbage that makes up AntiFa and BLM riot-squads gets turned loose, as police departments are defunded.

An AR15 is an excellent weapon for this purpose.

11Doug1943
Fev 5, 1:58pm

>6The majority of murders in the US are committed by people who are part of the Democratic voting base. When an AntiFa supporter murdered a Trump supporter in cold blood, the ranks of Antifa cheered, and leftist academics wrote of their approval. Please don't take us for fools.

There is nothing wrong with self defense.

And there is nothing automatically right in the decisions of a majority. The Founding Fathers were absolutely right to be suspicious of winner-take-all, unrestrained rule by 'the majority'.
For example, Mr Putin is a murdering tyrant, but he would probably get a thumping majority in Russia today, even in a free election.

For two and a half centuries, the United States has had a tradition of Free Speech. It has been strained at times, and it's absolutely true that the Right in America was sometimes the source of this strain.
In general, in fact, liberals have been better defenders of free speech than conservatives.
That is changing rapidly. Anyone who can't see this is willfully blind.
As America slides into second place in the world, with the dollar possibly losing its place as the world's reserve currency, the US will face huge internal strains.

Business-as-usual politics is fading fast. The old liberal/conservative rivalry, with Democrats and Republicans changing places every few years is over.

Patriots who don't want to commit suicide need to take a lesson from people who lived in an area of America where they were not afforded the protection of the law. Some of them organized themselves for armed self-defense. We must follow their example.

12Doug1943
Fev 5, 2:44pm

>9 prosfilaes:
"It wasn't conservatives who rioted this year

This year? 2021? That's objectively false."

That's just a lawyer's argument. All throughout last year, AntiFa and BLM rioted, killed people, burned down police stations ... and liberals sat on their hands, or contributed to the bail funds for the rioters, while the mainstream media lied about 'mostly peaceful protests'.

The mob of idiots who invaded Congress need to be prosecuted under the law. It's also the case -- and unfortunately, they cannot be punished for this --that they gave a huge gift to the Left. Although the moronic narcissist Trump did not deliberately urge them to do what they did, he didn't prevent it either. Hopefully he'll go off to some Caribbean island and spend the rest of his life chasing cuties from Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein's stable.

Of course, Democrats approve of mobs storming capitols,when it's their mob. We understand the dishonesty and hypocrisy. But we need to be smart, and not give the Left the opportunity hypocritically to pretend to support the sanctity of government institutions. What a laugh!

Patriots need to organize for self-defense. Ownership of an AR15 is just the first step. They then need to organize into local groups, which need to learn how to act when under attack. So far, we've been stupid. We've played into the hands of the AntiFa vermin.

For one thing, when defending small businesses from violent looters, patriots should not wander out alone among the AntiFa killers, where they are likely to be attacked, perhaps fatally. We need to learn some lessons from the French CGT/CP service d'ordre groups. This also means learning how to fight with sub-lethal weapons, as AntiFa do at the moment: bear spray, thrown missiles, industrial-strength lasers. We need to learn to wear masks, body armor, shields. And be aware that liberal journalists will lie through their teeth about us.

I'm perfectly aware that there are probably nice liberals here who don't understand what has happened to their side, just as there are conservatives who don't really understand what's happening to their country.

Sorry if the new reality upsets you, but things are changing fast in the US. Conservatives are fired from big corporations for expressing non-progressive views. They are sacked from teaching positions at universities for the same reason, or even physically assaulted. They are excluded from social media, and even denied the right to run their own social media. Progressive-dominated school boards are destroying the few high-quality public schools there are, since their favored victim groups can't get in on the basis of fair tests. And they teach howling nonsense about their origins to Black children, while teaching truth to white kids -- thus showing what Progressives secretly think about the intelligence of Blacks.

Probably many conservatives don't realize yet what a profound change their country is undergoing, and the implications for the future.

But, as the Russians say, you can't fool life. Hopefully, they'll wake up and acquire the means of self-preservation before they are outlawed.

13Doug1943
Fev 5, 3:23pm

John5918: I'm perfectly happy with your posting here. In this forum, I'm mainly interested in reaching other conservatives, but it's good to have argumentswith intelligent people who disagree with you, since it sharpens up your own ideas. And any rational person must also always believe that he may be wrong on this or that issue, and debating with thoughtful opponents -- which you are -- can help him realize his errors. ... Plus ... there is always the hope of winning a Convert.

I'm not sure what I have not answered: for the record, I'm in favor of obeying the law when it is just, and of, as a first response, nonviolent resistance and evasion when it is not. So if personal ownership of weapons is outlawed, they should turn out to have been lost in unfortunate boating accidents, or lent to elderly, now-deceased, relatives.

While the avenues of democracy are still open, we should use them. They won't be open forever, but while they are, let's take advantage of them.

As for nonviolence: when you are appealing to something in the official ideology of people in power -- something they have avoided implementing -- and where it is actually in the interests of the powerful to grant your demands ... yes, nonviolence can work. The British knew they could not hang on to their colonies, so they got out, both where the natives were nonviolent, and where they were not.

The American ruling class in the 1950s was increasingly embarrassed by the official racial disadvantages of Blacks in the South since it was having to compete with the Soviet Union in the Third World. So they took their Southern idiot-little-brothers by the scruff of their red necks and made them imitate the behavior of civilized people.

But don't expect nonviolence mass resistance to have much effect in those societies run by savages. Tehre, your nonviolence had better mean working quietly under the radar ... as in Russia, Iran, China.

As Mao said, political power comes out of the barrel of a, whoops, .... candy cane.

But you probably have something else in mind, so I would be grateful if you could formulate it for me, and I'll try to answer it.

By the way, some time ago, I raised money for a group of Southern men, many of them veterans, who were arming themselves for self-defense, and even delivered this money personally to their leader. (I'm a Southerner myself, and thought they were just following a good old Southern tradition.) When we were raising money for these men, our slogan was 'Every dime buys a bullet' -- oh, what inflation has done! I have to say that liberals had kittens about our fund-raising even then. Nothing changes.

One more point: The Left are not patriots, by and large. They will stand by while the memory of our Founding Fathers is dishonored. While Trump was President, they picked up the 'patriot' stick to beat him with, but that was just a tactical maneuvre, like a Klansman protesting that he doesn't hate Blacks. Liberals honor the memory of Ethyl Rosenberg, a Soviet spy. Please don't make me laugh by calling them 'patriots'. They're flag-burners.

I should say though, that patriotism, like courage, is a neutral virtue. You can be a bad person in every other way, and be a patriot. You can be a good person in every other way, and be an anti-patriot. Patriotism is just an extension of self-love, with a strong irrational component.

Until the human race has transcended tribal divisions, nations are necessarily the arenas where politics is fought out, and a nation whose population includes a large component who despise it, is not long for this world. And by the way, patriotism, in America, is the only effective anti-racism.

Things are changing rapidly in America. Liberals used to be better defenders of free speech than conservatives --- this is just a fact. No longer. Liberals are in fact a dying breed, being replaced by 'progressives', who have no interest in free speech except where it supports their own views.

The differences between liberals and conservatives used to center around things like the minimum wage, government welfare programs (things I support in principle, by the way, not being an economic Libertarian or a Libertarian of any sort in the ideological, as opposed to the personal leaning, sense.). This is no longer true. The ruling class has gone international -- and its political views follow its economic interests.

So ... as American culture is destroyed from within, and as we are pushed into Number Two by a rising China, we are going to see huge, terrible tensions within the US. The nearest analogy is post-WWI Germany, with all the sinister implications of that comparison. Let us be subjected to a serious military humiliation by a China which is stronger than we are ... and the result within the US will be very ugly. The Left lie and call patriots 'white supremacists'. They have not seen real white supremacy. But the potential is there.

It's not predictable how these factors will play out, but a nation eaten out from the inside will not survive them. The exact modality of its collapse cannot be foreseen.

But patriots must prepare. (Ironically, there are lessons for us to learn from the Left, which also had to operate under conditions of censorship in various countries in the past. Patriots should look up the phrase 'Aesopian language', because that's how we will have to speak on media like Twitter and Facebook and LibraryThing, where the Leftist thoughtpolice will be watching for thoughtcrime.)

14John5918
Editado: Fev 6, 1:35am

>13 Doug1943:

Thanks, Doug, for a long response. Apologies if I am misinterpreting you, but it seems to me that what you are saying in a nutshell is that only a right wing government is good for the USA, because the left are not patriots and are not in favour of free speech and are not good for the country (etc), and therefore the right needs to prevail, by force if necessary. That's a valid political opinion, I suppose, but it is not democracy. Democracy demands that we accept governments we don't like as well as ones we like. As the opposite of a political conservative I believe that right wing governments are destroying my own native country, the UK, but that does not give me the right to take up arms against a democratically elected government, much as I despise them. Perhaps the right wing in the USA should come out openly and state whether it believes in democracy or whether it believes in right wing hegemony?

You also appear to ignore demographics. The world (and the USA) change whether we like it or not (you and I are of an age where we probably find change difficult in many walks of life and look back through rose-tinted spectacles at an imagined golden age of our youth), and the USA is increasingly no longer a white-dominated society. These are realities we need to learn to live with, and to celebrate rather than fear. Forty years ago I lived and worked for a couple of years in the Southall area of west London, which was more like India than England. One of the best experiences of my life.

On nonviolence, Erica and Maria's evidence-based academic study which I referenced examines several hundred struggles, not just "soft" ones, and demonstrates that nonviolent struggles succeeded in over 50% of cases, violent struggles in around 25%, and in another 25% of cases, neither succeeded. If you were a betting man, the odds are on a nonviolent struggle. A recent case which post-dates their study is Sudan, where a nonviolent popular uprising succeeded in overthrowing one of the most brutal Islamist military dictatorships in the world.

15prosfilaes
Fev 6, 3:18am

>12 Doug1943: If you're claiming that conservatives didn't do something, what liberals did is irrelevant. That's logical 101.

>11 Doug1943: When an AntiFa supporter murdered a Trump supporter in cold blood, the ranks of Antifa cheered, and leftist academics wrote of their approval.

The mob of idiots who invaded Congress need to be prosecuted under the law. It's also the case -- and unfortunately, they cannot be punished for this --that they gave a huge gift to the Left.

That "mob of idiots" killed a Trump supporter named Brian Sicknick, who was a police officer at the Capitol doing his job. But you seem more worried about the "gift to the Left". Likewise, above in >7 Doug1943: you write "the murder rate has gone up by fifty percent in many of our cities. The police probably feel that it's not worth intervening, and I can't blame them." This is when partisans start sounding hypocritical and a bit nasty, when they start ranting about one person like Aaron Danielson who makes their cause sound good, and show apathy towards similar cases, even fellow supporters like Brian Sicknick.

Democrats approve of mobs storming capitols,when it's their mob.

Your case in Wisconsin had a "mob" inhabiting the public spaces of the capitol, and not preventing the Wisconsin Senate from carrying on votes. That's quite different from the destructive and murderous behavior of the Capitol riots.

>13 Doug1943: Liberals honor the memory of Ethyl Rosenberg, a Soviet spy.

Not in the 21st century. I can't remember anyone mentioning the Rosenbergs in any of the liberal spaces I've been in. There's a handful of old-school Marxists out there, but if you're talking about even vaguely mainstream liberalism, Communism is a red herring.

some time ago, I raised money for a group of Southern men, many of them veterans, who were arming themselves for self-defense, and even delivered this money personally to their leader

Again, this group has a group photo a picture of Ronald Reagan, who signed into law a law against carrying loaded guns, because of the Black Panthers. Republicans approve of self-defense so long as it's their people doing the "self-defense".

And by the way, patriotism, in America, is the only effective anti-racism.

It's a cute claim, but would you like to even begin to back it up? Especially if patriotism means you can't "dishonor" White people who kept Black people as slaves.

They are ... even denied the right to run their own social media.

This is false. Nobody has a right to demand that a company host their website. As Amazon's response says "this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. There is no legal basis in AWS’s customer agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this nature." Do you wish to insist that Amazon be forced to host such content?

They're flag-burners.

As with the Rosenberg comment, you've missed the past few decades. As far as I know, with the exception of a small spat protesting the Flag Desecration Act, there's been no significant amount of flag burning in the US since the end of the Vietnam War.

Note that Republicans are the ones carrying the Confederate flag, the flag of a nation that waged war on the US. Amazing Patriotism. There's probably more people on the right carrying Nazi flags then there are flag-burners on the left.

>11 Doug1943: And there is nothing automatically right in the decisions of a majority. The Founding Fathers were absolutely right to be suspicious of winner-take-all, unrestrained rule by 'the majority'.

Churchill said "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." It seems like I keep hearing this argument, and then it stops there, as if it were good enough to say that democracy is not perfect. How should we run our government, and why should we, the majority, tolerate that?

(Oh, and would you justify that photo of Reagan? If self-defense is such a right, how can you glorify Reagan?)

16Doug1943
Fev 6, 8:24am

John: Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I very definitely do NOT believe that 'the right should prevail, by force if necessary.' I could fulminate about 'how the hell could you deduce that from what I write', but I'm familiar with this sort of reasoning. Actually, I'm familiar with it from my own people, many of whom just write off your side as 'commies', and believe we're already living in a communist dictatorship. No, they don't really believe there is no essential difference between North Korea and North Dakota, but it's so much easier to just say "commies!" It's like, in response to the instruction on an algebra test to "Find X", drawing an arrow to the letter in question and writing "There it is!". In fact, one of my fellow rightwingers has concluded that I am a commie, because I think people should get vaccinated against the Chinese Communist Virus. I'm not making this up.

For the record: So long as a country retains a basic minimum of what for want of a better term I will call 'liberal democratic' institutions -- free elections, freedom of expression, the right to start a business -- then everyone should be loyal to the state, even if they are in radical disagreement with the government of the day. They should obey the law, and use only legal channels to express dissent. (In particular: the people who stormed the Capitol in Washington should receive the same treatment as the people who stormed the Capitol in Wisconsin ten years ago. Fair is fair.)

They should especially do this if they are in a minority, for pragmatic reasons. In fact, a minority must do this even if the society they live in is a very flawed liberal democracy that, for example, does not afford the full protection of the law to this minority. Or even if it's no liberal democracy at all. We are not obligated to commit suicide.

I'll have a look at your academic study some time, but please be aware that in the social sciences, academics tend to find what they're looking for. For a sobering reminder of this, Google 'the replication crisis'.

Thus Armenians in Ottoman Turkey, or Jews in Nazi Germany, had no choice but to submit. (Note that had a democratic vote been taken in either of those two countries during the period of maximum persecution of their minorities, the rulers of the day would undoubtedly have won it.

'Democracy' does not mean a limited-government democratic republic -- the latter is a sub-set of possible 'democracies'. And while we're on the subject, democracy -- of any sort -- is not necessarily the road to human progress, always and everywhere. Dictatorships can sometimes be the best, even only, way forward. Everything depends on circumstances. My best example here is Mr Cromwell (Oliver) and his Puritan New Model Army, which also should serve as a rebuke to modern day snotty atheist kiddies who think all religion everywhere at all times is reactionary -- you would have found more sophisticated skeptics among the Caviliers than among the revolutionary Puritans who, as Macaulay put it, 'humbled themselves in the dust before their God, the better to set their foot on the neck of their King'.

The best and most relevant example of a minority having to exist in less-than-liberal-democratic circumstances -- using 'liberal democratic' to include equal protection under the law -- is the situation of Blacks in the American South for nearly a century after the end of the Civil War. I'm sure you, and everyone reading this, knows about their situation: effectively denied the right to vote, excluded from the public institutions -- like schools and universities -- for which their taxes helped pay, and not afforded the protection of the law. Whites could murder Blacks, or their white sympathyzers, in cold blood in full view of witnesses, be tried, and then be acquitted by an all-white jury, some of whom would then shake hands with the murderer.

But since the South was embedded in a less racially-repressive society, whose rulers found this sort of blatant racial oppression against their own interests on the world stage, Blacks had a winning strategy: non-violent disruptive resistance, appeal to the white conscience (including within the South), plus discreet armed self-defense. (Official history is largely bunk, of course. Martin Luther King had armed bodyguards.)

But prior to the Civil War, the only road open to Blacks in the South was to flee, as is the case with many tribal minorities around the world today. Iraq is now a democracy, so Christians, get out while you can. For God's sake, don't try any 'non-violent resistance', no matter what some naive American academics may say.

Anyway, my side needs to acquire fluffy bunny rabbits, the means of feeding them, and learn how to work in rabbit-raising co ops. But not for the purpose of initiating some sort of coup d'etat. The relative freedom that Americans of all political persuasions have had is ebbing away, and, although no one knows the future, I believe that there is a serious chance of a radical alteration of our condition, relatively soon.

I say "relative freedom" because, in addition to the plight of Blacks in the South, there have been other serious limitations, abbreviations, restrictions on liberal democratic freedoms in the US. Google 'Peekskill riots', or 'Communist Control Act of 1953'. A friend of mine was sitting in prison in Boston awaiting trial under the Smith Act when the Supreme Court's decision in Yates (1957) allowed him to walk free. Conservatives in particular ought to take note of these examples. In fact, if I had dictatorial powers, I would make every conservative read Zinn's People's History of the US, which lovingly accumulates all of these examples. This doesn't mean his conclusions are correct, nor even all of his facts -- Sacco and Vanzetti and the Rosenbergs were guilty -- but most of the facts there are true.

Today was like yesterday, and tomorrow will probably be like today, and it's all too easy to project this indefinitely forward, ignoring the 'Old Mole' of history grubbing beneath the surface. So thought the Europeans in 1912, reading books proving that war was now impossible due to the interlocked finances of the great powers and the horrific improvements in the means of waging war.

The German Socialists were practically doubling their vote in every election and were already the largest political party in Germany. Progress was visible on every field -- votes for women were just a matter of time, social welfare measures were being instituted, monarchs were slowly giving way to the demand of their middle classes for responsible constitutional governments. Not to mention the astounding progress in both theoretical and applied science, from Special Relativity to powered heavier than air flight. Everything was looking up!

And then ...

But even if they could have predicted the oncoming cataclysm -- and a few people did worry about it -- they could not have predicted the emergence of something new on the world scene -- totalitarianism, putting forward a leftist program to entice the masses. The utopian 'Looking Backwards' novels of the day envisaged a leap, but a good one (from their point of view).

I hope I'm wrong, but that's the way things look to me -- and to a lot of other people, not all of them black-hearted reactionaries.

So we ought to be alert, as America rots from within and is pushed down from without, to the emergence of something as unpredictable today, as the gulag-state was in 1912.

But I should also say this -- since this reply is far too short and I'm sure you're eager to read more -- patriots acquiring fluffy bunny rabbits is necessary, but far from sufficient.

My side is largely innocent of how to wage war politically. It's not used to being 'oppositional' to the whole social order -- that's the traditional position of the Left -- and so it falls for insane conspiracy theories, or touching faith in an invisible man in the sky whose plan is about to be fulfilled. Or an all-too-visible man on the ground. For sophisticated analysis of American capitalist society, we have to turn, mainly, to the Left, especially to the Marxists. We need not accept their ridiculous conclusions that the solution to all problems is for the government to own the economy.

We have to become far more politically sophisticated, learn how to make allies, how to help the Left engage in internal fratricide (it's so funny to see anarchists working with communists, since the latter have executed far more anarchists than conservatives have), and other political skills that we don't have right now.

My side has no ideology -- conservatism is really just a disposition, not a body of theory -- and so we borrow from those nice Libertarians, with their simple axiomatic approach to the world. ("Government ownership bad ... therefore .... auction off the National Parks!") This prevents us from exploring good conservative measures that might slow the decay of society, and also win us some allies from among people who don't really want to see children sent down the mines again because 'Government regulation bad'.

Whoa ... who's actually going to read all this? Better to just say, "You're advocating a military/rightwing/fascist coup, you white supremacist you!" Well, at least here no one can throw a half-brick or Molotov cocktail at me -- all they can do is flag my post as offensive to their delicate sensibilities.

17John5918
Editado: Fev 6, 10:48am

>16 Doug1943:

Thanks, Doug, and I repeat my apology if I have misinterpreted or misrepresented your position. There's a lot in your response which I will reflect upon.

Not sure what your fluffy bunny comments are about. If that is your opinion of active organised nonviolence, it is far from the mark. A nonviolent struggle is hard work; requires training, organisation and (self-)discipline; is an exhausting and at times disillusioning long-term endeavour, not an exciting flash in the pan; involves real sacrifices and casualties; and participants have to be ready to suffer murder, imprisonment, torture, beatings, rape, and potential loss of income, jobs, careers, marriages and friendships.

In a previous post you talked about American tradition. Nonviolent protest is an American tradition, and one which succeeded at least in changing legislation and praxis to give civil rights to the black population in the 1960s, even if it didn't change the attitude of many whites. For all the faults in the US system of governance, it is not a dictatorship, and there remain many nonviolent legitimate channels through which one can work for change without needing to arm oneself with a military firearm and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

in the social sciences, academics tend to find what they're looking for

In this case it was the opposite. Erica was sceptical about the efficacy of nonviolent action and expected her research to validate her scepticism. It didn't.

But more generally, I think your comment shows a lack of understanding about academic research. Academics want to test their theories, and while they may expect their theories to be validated by their research, what they are looking for is the actual empirical result, not their expectation.

18Doug1943
Fev 6, 12:17pm

'Fluffy bunny' is Aesopian language. It refers to the means of effective self-defense. If I openly say what I'm talking about, Big Brother will censor me.

Your description of academics is the ideal, not the reality. Have a look at the Wiki article on the 'replicability crisis', the first paragraph of which I reproduce here:

"Ioannidis (2005), "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False".
The replication crisis (also called the replicability crisis and the reproducibility crisis) is an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce. The replication crisis most severely affects the social sciences and medicine. The phrase was coined in the early 2010s as part of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis represents an important body of research in the field of metascience."

John Ioannidis started it off, by looking at the top 100 papers in medicine, and finding that many of them were full of statistical errors. Then others got into the field, and began trying to reproduce results in other fields like psychology, and found that many of them were not repeatable. (I remember having a few of my favorite beliefs punctured by this process.)

The reality is, academics are human like everyone else. They have their prejudices just like you and me.

For example, I keep a collection of academic papers that show that conservatives are conservative because of malformations of their brains: Once it was our swollen amygdalas, another time our shrunken anterior cingulate cortexes.

Biological arguments for social behavior are actually more a conservative thing, so it's amusing to see the Left dabbling in this area. Very dangerous for them to do so, of course, because it then suggests that .... IQ might play a role in social affairs. Mustn't have that!

Anyway, I am all in favor of, when necessary and when it's the best tactic, non-violent action to effect changes in unjust laws and practices. A friend of mine and I took part in the first lunch sit-in in Houston Texas long ago, and I have no regrets about doing so. We did, inadvertently, almost start a riot later, but were rescued by a policeman with more common sense than we had. Lesson: don't trust anyone under 30.

So, yay for nonviolence.

I don't think it will work very well in North Korea, but it might in Poland. Violence on the part of non-state actors should really be reserved for self-defense, so long as there is a chance of achieving one's aims by legal, peaceful means.

But in many situations, we have to go to war. Mr Hitler could have been stopped by a timely invasion of Germany by Britain and France in 1934, probably with the enthusiastic support of many Germans. But no one wants violence, so ... Lefties marched during the 1930s with banners reading "Down with Fascism and War!". Admirable sentiments, but you needed the latter to destroy the former.

Humans are pretty nasty creatures, but over the centuries we have managed to learn to live together in the same state, under certain circumstances.

However, note that wherever different tribal groups start to match each other in terms of numbers within the same state -- not even fifty-fifty, 25-75 will do it if the 25 have some geographic advantage -- then the possibility of bloody civil war arises.

Of course we see this in Africa all the time, but most people probably dismiss the lessons of Africa as only applicable to peoples of a low cultural level. But the reality is, civilized whites and Orientals and everyone are just as capable of horrible disgusting tribal butchery as backward Africans, as anyone with even a minimal knowledge of 20th Century European history can testify.

Which is why I always laugh when I see some earnest Lefty chanting "Diversity is Strength!" Yeah, and "War is Peace!".

19John5918
Editado: Fev 6, 1:22pm

>18 Doug1943: the 'replicability crisis'

Well, whatever the supposed trend, this particular academic study bucked it, as the result was not what the researcher expected.

But in many situations, we have to go to war

Often only because we've let the situation deteriorate for so long that all the nonviolent opportunities have passed. War should always be a last resort, but that implies that we should be taking advantage of the first, second, third and other resorts before we get to that stage.

I don't think it will work very well in North Korea, but it might in Poland

That's effectively what people said about Sudan. A brutal Islamist military dictatorship entrenched for thirty years. Several attempts at armed insurgency which had failed to shift the regime. "I don't think it will work very well in Sudan, but it might in Poland". Well, it did work in Sudan. And remember that your own political context is the USA, not North Korea, and in the USA a nonviolent struggle has succeeded in our lifetime, so I wouldn't be so sceptical.

most people probably dismiss the lessons of Africa as only applicable to peoples of a low cultural level

Is that why the successful nonviolent revolution in Sudan is disregarded? But who gets to decide that African culture is of a lower level than, say, US or any other culture?

20Doug1943
Fev 6, 3:44pm

Prosfilaes: let me see if I can answer your points.

You say that just because the Left does something, doesn't make it right when the Right does it. I agree. With respect to breaking in to the chambers where a legislative body sits, in an attempt to enforce 'the will of the people', this is definitely a bad idea -- usually -- and has been since the French Revolution. However, everything is subject to context, and I can see a situation -- say where the masses of breakers-in are trying to eject a corrupt legislature, such as might happen in Latin America -- where it might be justifiable. But usually no.

Certainly the events in Washington were, from my point of view, "worse than a crime, a blunder". It gave an enormous gift to the Left, even though the only deliberate murder was of one of us by a Black policeman. (Had he been white, and the protestor a Black BLM supporter, he'd be in prison right now, of course. Don't hold your breath for that in this case.)

The fire-extinguisher-thrower needs to be prosecuted for manslaughter. The rest of the breakers-in need to be prosecuted under whatever law applies.

Then, when they are released from jail, my side should appear in large numbers and beat the s--t out of them for being so stupid. The Left can burn down police stations ... we can't.

Really, it's a joke. My side are the people who pick up their rubbish after a demonstration, who sympathyze with the police. Your side are the violence-prone people, the people who chant "Whadda we want? Dead Cops!" But life, not to mention the media, is not fair and we shouldn't fall into their trap.

You say the Wisconsin Capitol-breakers in were non-violent and let the legislators get on with their business. Yes, they were more intelligent and had smarter leaders. But even if the Trump-supporters had tried to emulate them, please don't try to tell me that Ms Pelosi would be congratulating them for demonstrating democracy in action.

As for the Rosenbergs. You don't get around enough -- not a criticism, I don't either. As for praising the Soviet spies who helped Stalin get the atom bomb, I offer you the New York City Council -- not an obscure bunch of eccentrics: https://nypost.com/2015/09/29/city-council-honors-woman-executed-for-treason-in-...

Just for the record, I've never liked the word 'traitor' when applied to people who had honorable motives, since I don't think, as I've explained, that loyalty to a particular nation state is a virtue in itself. The large number of Communist Party members and sympathyzers were, in their majority, motivated in part at least by the desire for a better world, one without unemployment, racism, and war.

They were willing to overlook, or excuse, the gulags because they saw them as ephemeral, temporary, a necessity in a backward country surrounded by bitter enemies. And at the time -- the 1930s -- the Soviets and the Communists seemed to be the only effective resistance to the Nazis.

So had I been politically active at the time, I would certainly have strongly opposed the death penalty for the Rosenbergs. (And, in addition, it was very bad publicity for the US. The Russians could execute people for political reasons by the score every year, but the Left, around the world, applied different standards to them. We may have learned something from that, because later generations of Leftist killers and would-be killers were just sent to prison, if that, and not executed, as they would have been in many other countries.)

Okay, Reagan and conservatives in general on anti-gun legislation, sparked by the Black Panthers and their appearance with loaded weapons in Sacramento.
Quite right. In principle, nothing should be precluded. In occupied German and Japan after the war, we enforced strict rules against pro-Nazi and pro-militarist free speech, not to mention restricting access to weapons. Lincoln closed newspapers in the North, although it was against his instincts. A nicely-nuanced discussion of the whole issue is here: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/2009/02/11/civil-war-tested-lincolns-toler...

So one can understand the response of Reagan -- and Democrats -- to the Panthers, whose leader had advocated shooting policemen in the back while 'they sipped their coffee'. But it was wrong. Better to let the Panthers kill each other, and return to pimping and drug-dealing, as they did.

On American patriotism as the only effective anti-racism. Let me qualify it: the only effective anti-racism among ordinary whites and Hispanics. (That is, vs anti-Black racial prejudice, which is very strong among Hispanics, just as Blacks are more anti-Semitic than non-Jewish whites.) How to show this? Well, among white-guilt liberals, of course, it's not -- they're not really patriots in the first place. But among ordinary white people, it's the one thing that can counter their actual experience of Black behavior, the latter being what drives anti-Black prejudice among ordinary whites.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDVY3tz4HhE&t=37s
Look at the white men there. Exactly the sort of people you loathe, your social inferiors. But they honor people who were willing to risk their lives for America, as this deceased Black Marine had been. God help any KKK racists or AntiFa flag-burners who had turned up at this event.

Anything else is just goody-goody drink-all-your-milk bs that is ignored, or lies. The Left pushes to open up the racial fracture lines in America: they think they've found a winning formula. They don't know what they're letting themselves in for. If racial consciousness ever really takes hold of the white population, we're doomed as a nation.

We probably are anyway, in some novel form, but if the disease of racial awareness takes hold among the majority, we'll see a particularly ugly spiral down. And it's quite possible. I've spent some time trying to understand what's going on among the "red-pilled" young males who hang out on 4Chan and the like, where there is no conservative presence to speak of, but plenty of very sophisticated anti-Semites and white supremacists -- real ones. At the moment, generalized social disapproval of outright racism, held by both Right and Left in America, keeps them suppressed. But this could change.

As for flag-burning. It's actually very common among the far Left, anti-Fa and such. Do you really want me to post links? I appreciate that mainstream progressives are not dumb enough to engage in it.

Yes, some people on the Right like to carry the Confederate Flag, and I am willing to believe that they might well have unpleasant things to say about Blacks -- the sort of things liberals believe, but don't say. However, the Confederate Flag has had many 'meanings' over the years -- just as the swastika, pre-Hitler, was an obscure Hindu symbol for prosperity. I recall a popular TV show in the 70s or 80s which featured some lovable good ole boys with the Confederate Flag painted on the roof of their car. It meant workingclass disdain for hoighty-toighty Yankees, not nostalgia for slavery.

In fact, for a while, the Civil Rights movement considered the Confederate Flag as simply a regional symbol: the South, Black and White, and used it as such. It was too much of a stretch, but it shows how phoney the pious bulls--t uttered by liberals today is, "traitors" .. hah!

What I really object to with this phony opportunist pseudo-patriotic horses--t is that it runs directly counter to the attitude of the men who actually defeated the Slavocracy.

There is a very moving passage describing Lee's surrender, written by the man who commanded the 20th Maine at Gettysburg -- a regiment which held the extreme left of the Union line, faced repeated charges from the Confederates, ran out of ammunition, and defeated the final attack by fixing bayonets and charging downhill into their attackers. When I look at the liberal crybabies on the elite campuses today, or the unwashed AntiFa vermin, led by paedophiles, and compare them to the men, both North and South, who fought it out in the Civil War ... enough. Here's how real Americans reacted and should react today:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the morning of April 9, 1865, Chamberlain learned of the desire by General Robert E. Lee to surrender the Army of Northern Virginia when a Confederate staff officer approached him under a flag of truce. "Sir," he reported to Chamberlain, "I am from General Gordon. General Lee desires a cessation of hostilities until he can hear from General Grant as to the proposed surrender." The next day, Chamberlain was summoned to Union headquarters where Maj. Gen. Charles Griffin informed him that he had been selected to preside over the parade of the Confederate infantry as part of their formal surrender at Appomattox Court House on April 12.

Chamberlain was thus responsible for one of the most poignant scenes of the American Civil War. As the Confederate soldiers marched down the road to surrender their arms and colors, Chamberlain, on his own initiative, ordered his men to come to attention and "carry arms" as a show of respect. In memoirs written forty years after the event, Chamberlain described what happened next:

Gordon, at the head of the marching column, outdoes us in courtesy. He was riding with downcast eyes and more than pensive look; but at this clatter of arms he raises his eyes and instantly catching the significance, wheels his horse with that superb grace of which he is master, drops the point of his sword to his stirrup, gives a command, at which the great Confederate ensign following him is dipped and his decimated brigades, as they reach our right, respond to the 'carry.' All the while on our part not a sound of trumpet or drum, not a cheer, nor a word nor motion of man, but awful stillness as if it were the passing of the dead."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those were Americans, by God! How utterly obscene that their memory should be stolen by Leftist statue-toppling scum today!

Let's see, anything else? Oh yes, your defense of the social media monopolies' right to control the political content of what is posted on them.
Well, that's a good Libertarian argument. I assume you then agree they have the right to discriminate not just politically, but racially in whom they hire, as the Libertarians would. Incidentally, it has always been a position of the Left that the newspapers' effective monopoly of the press was just another example of how unfair capitalism was. They believed if they could be represented in the mainstream media, people who flock to their banner. 'Manufacturing Consent' as Chomsky and a pal called in a famous book. Now the Right is seeing just how correct they were. All except the Libertarians, who are happy with this arrangement, and also want Open Borders.

But I'm no Libertarian, and would have applied the anti-Trust act to these companies from the beginning -- and, if necessary, the requirement to permit all speech/writings that does not advocate the commission of a felony.

I'll grant you this: many conservatives have appropriated Libertarian ideology for want of one of their own. So they have no answer to you. Let this be a lesson to them that the 'market' doesn't always give us the best outcomes, and that state intervention is somethings necessary, although something we should be reluctant to invoke. In Economics 101 we learn that the market only really fulfills its promise when certain other conditions are true, such as easy entry into the market by new players, wide dissemination of relevant information, no collusion among those in the market. Of course reality was never like this.

Things are changing. America's future is not predictable, but we get some hint of it by looking at other countries where the simple rules of democracy -- the majority rules --lead to civil war. Of course, most Americans are totally ignorant of other countries, so they will be surprised.

Most conservatives have grown up in a free country: that academics could be fired, or assaulted, for their political views -- this seems like something that only happens in backward nations. They'll have to learn fast.

21prosfilaes
Fev 7, 12:28am

>20 Doug1943: Those were Americans, by God! How utterly obscene that their memory should be stolen by Leftist statue-toppling scum today!

Sure. It doesn't matter how many (Black) women or children they raped, how many (Black) people they beat for reaching for freedom or not working hard enough for someone else's profit, it didn't matter how many Americans they killed to defend the right they claimed to keep Black people as slaves, it just mattered how they responded to those they considered their social equals. How obscene that people don't agree!

Look at the white men there. Exactly the sort of people you loathe, your social inferiors.

Where do you get off making that accusation? I don't loathe them. The Patriot Guard Riders seem like a cool bunch. I have no problem with anyone who treats others with respect, and see no evidence they have a problem with that.

the requirement to permit all speech/writings that does not advocate the commission of a felony.

Did you read what I wrote? Let me repeat from the quote from >15 prosfilaes:

Amazon's response says "this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. There is no legal basis in AWS’s customer agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this nature."

So much of the rest of it is just partisan silliness. Liberals support Rosenberg because one group did, but conservatives don't support the Holocaust despite "Camp Auschwitz Guard" sweatshirts worn at the Capitol and 6MWE shirts worn by the Proud Boys. The fact that a bunch of conservatives smashed up the Capitol building and assaulted a bunch of police doesn't stop Conservatives from being the people who clear up after the demonstrations and the friends of police. When liberals act peaceful, it's because they're strategic, and when conservatives act peaceful it's because that's their nature. It would only convince someone who already believes what you believe.

You keep mentioning the murder of Aaron Danielson by Michael Reinoehl (who, by the way, was killed by police instead of being arrested, police who are not in jail.) That's basically the only case of the far-left killing someone in recent times.* You want talk about who hits home for me? My grandfather was close enough to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building to hear the blast when right-wing terrorists killed 168 there. Jerad and Amanda Miller came down from the Bundy Ranch to kill three people, including two police, at a shopping center I had frequently shopped at. Using "fluffy bunnies" that you encourage the distribution of, Stephen Paddock killed 60 and wounded 867, leading to a late night call from my mother worried I had decided to go to a music festival. Your demons are not my demons.

* "In October 2020, Danielson's killing was added to the CSIS terrorism database as a deadly "far-left" attack, the first such incident in over two decades. The killing is also referenced on the Anti-Defamation League's page on antifa, as the only "suspected antifa-related murder" to date; and the New America Foundation's tally of killings during terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, as the first recorded fatality in a far-left attack." (Wikipedia)