Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
The "normiecon boomers" who are still awake right now to talk in friendly confines are wondering when the shooting's going to start.
And the answer, of course, is "never" because, as you note, it's always some unspecified "someone" who "shoots one of these judges/bureaucrats/politicians." Nobody's going to be the first to stick their own neck out; they're going to wait for someone else to get the ball rolling, and join in only once it looks like it isn't going to be nipped in the bud (which it would be).
Plus, to be anything more than useless lone-wolf terrorism would require organization — solid, pre-established coordination — and, as a Disqus commenter over at Instapundit put it, we've been breeding such things out of the Right (in favor of "I just want to grill" passivism and "don't tread on me", "I don't answer to nobody; if someone orders me to breathe I'll suffocate myself to death to spite them!" individualism) for decades.
Trump has no support left to lose he didn't already lose 3 years ago.
The example of Ted Stevens suggests otherwise.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
That's an argument that it will not win; it's not an argument against doing it.
So, what, does the unarmed man of my analogy point his finger and shout "pew, pew" then?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
At some point, that portion hits critical mass, and then things go badly.
And I still have little idea what this is supposed to look like, and everything that's suggested seems rather implausible to me. The only remotely plausible "critical mass" outcome, in my view, is a parallel to the German Peasants' War; and even that requires a level of unrest I find implausible. A bunch of Wacos and Oklahoma Cities — the latter followed by prosecutions and crackdowns — seems more likely.
"Not with a bang, but a whimper" and all that.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
and not just a handful of columnists.
I'm talking about people I know personally, fellow Alaskans, who acted similarly in the Ted Stevens case — including one person who argues that if you vote for "a convicted felon" God will literally damn you to hell for it.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
On the bright side, I believe this conviction will make it quite a bit more likely SCOTUS hands down a more expansive presidential immunity case which will bar this prosecution.
Can I ask your reasoning why?
With this conviction, I believe they're more likely to adopt a more expansive view in order to make sure the holding squelches these sorts of state-law prosecutions.
But why would SCOTUS want to "squelch" this?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
to nearly the same extent as they did pre-2020.
Yes, but even though that belief is smaller, there's still enough to get Biden through, particularly given all the ovine Boomer Republicans who aren't going to vote for "a convicted felon".
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
Suffice to say, if he’s re-elected,
Except this has now guaranteed that won't happen.
things could get interesting for democrats real fast.
How so? An Attorney General is only one man; how much could he do with the entire rest of the Justice Department (and probably much of the court system) actively opposing him?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
No president would get re-elected in an environment of high inflation after trust in institutions was permanently lost after footage of them transparently lying to justify losing their nutty over the chink virus.
Sure they can. If nothing else, you can just make up election results saying they won from whole cloth, declare those "the official result" and punish any "election denier" who dares to claim those numbers are anything but 100% true and accurate.
But, like @The_Nybbler says below, you almost certainly don't need to go that far. Just use control of the media and the institutions to ensure enough of the peasant masses are marinaded solely in your official narrative, and enough of them will go along. Particularly if the other candidate is currently rotting in a cell somewhere.
I guess the big question is ‘what happens next?’
I think @The_Nybbler has it: a bunch of "law and order" Boomer Republicans refuse to vote for "a convicted felon," and Biden wins. Just like happened here in Alaska with Ted Stevens — yes, the conviction (in that case) was a product of egregious prosecutorial misconduct (in conspiracy with FBI agents to withhold exculpatory evidence), and was quickly overturned on appeal… but not until after the election was already lost.
We're about to see total Democrat dominance at the Federal level bigger than that of the mid 20th Century — no conservative "Dixiecrats" to "cross the aisle" or Eisenhowers getting through. Just ever-more-triumphant Blue Tribe as us Reds continue dying out, until we finally go extinct, and disappear forever.
Edit: And, in support of the 'Republicans are going to keep on "taking the high road" rather than engage in tit-for-tat lawfare,' I link former governor of Maryland, and current GOP candidate for US senator for that state, Larry Hogan on Twitter:
Regardless of the result, I urge all Americans to respect the verdict and the legal process. At this dangerously divided moment in our history, all leaders—regardless of party—must not pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship. We must reaffirm what has made this nation great: the rule of law.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
There is very little argument to Republicans against goose-for-gander here,
Except the only one needed — it won't work. Because they lack the power of the left, lack the means to strike back. It's like arguing that an unarmed man being shot at should "shoot back" at his attacker with the gun he doesn't have.
The Dems have all the power, all the institutions. We on the right are an already-defeated remnant, doomed to feeble, pointless lashing out as we go to our inevitable doom.
(Maybe it would be better to just spare ourselves the suffering and end it all, like the equally-doomed Sicarii at Masada.)
There is going to be significantly less trust in our institutions six months from now than there was six months ago.
Again, "the institutions" don't need "trust," they only need obedience. And to get that, you need only escalate punishments for disobedience until every single person is either compliant or dead.
Political division and social polarization will be significantly worse.
So what? Increasing division and distinction between the two sides doesn't change which one is vastly stronger than the other, and thus which tribe is pretty much guaranteed to triumph.
There's a pretty clear trend here, and sooner or later that trend is going to run out of road.
And at the end of that road, the triumphant Blues completely erase the Red Tribe (as a culture) from the earth forever.
Edit: as further support, I'd like to add this quote from Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority:
I have suggested in this chapter that human beings come equipped with strong and pervasive pro-authority biases that operate even when an authority is illegitimate or issues illegitimate and indefensible commands. As we have see, individuals confronted with the demands of authority figures are liable to feel an almost unconditional compulsion to obey, and this may prompt them to look for explanations for why the authority is legitimate and why they are morally required to obey. People often defer instinctively to those who wield power, and there are even cases in which people emotionally bond with others (such as kidnappers) who hold great but completely unjustified power over them, adopting the perspective and goals of those who hold the power. Once a pattern of obedience has started, the need to minimize cognitive dissonance favors continued obedience and the adoption of beliefs that rationalize the authority’s commands and one’s own obedience to them. Due to a general status quo bias, once a practice or institution becomes established in some society, that practice is likely to be viewed by members of that society, almost automatically, as normal, right, and good.
None of this by itself shows that existing political institutions are illegitimate. But it strongly suggests that they would be widely accepted as legitimate even if they were not. Theories of authority devised by political philosophers can plausibly be viewed as attempts to rationalize common intuitions about the need for obedience, where these intuitions are the product of systematic biases.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
This just clarifies the system is broken.
How so? It seems to be working just fine at what seems to me to be its primary purpose — keeping the Blue Tribe elite solidly in power, and protecting Our Democracy from the horrible populist threat of the voters getting what they vote for.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
There will be nothing more destabilizing for democracy and American government than making every president a Caesar who either crosses the Rubicon or dies in jail.
Why would a Democrat president need to worry about "dying in jail" under his Democrat successor? And you won't have to worry about a Republican president becoming a Caesar to avoid that fate when there's never going to be another Republican president.
Permanent Dem rule is here. There is no lawful, nor even non-violent, path left for Red Tribe. And I've expressed my doubts about the effectiveness of violent measures, so, once again, I conclude we're doomed.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
I am 95% certain on this. In this 5% chance that it happens, I would like a followup bet that some portion of the US breaks off into its own country.
I could see some portion of the US attempting to split off, but what makes you think they'd be any more successful than the last time it was tried?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5d ago
the other party has to either become a competing socialist party or stand on principle and expire.
Or flip the table and resort to non-democratic methods.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
8d ago
I saw the term often associated with "gacha" mobile games.
My understanding is that it originates in the casino industry.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
14d ago
turned into Phyllis Schafer
Did you mean Phyllis Schlafly here? Because googling "Phyllis Schafer" gives me a landscape painter.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
17d ago
The only thing that matters is who can kill or indefinitely imprison whom without any consequences.
Yes, and we need only look around us, look at history and who's been winning, to see the clear answer to that question.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
17d ago
So, why are federal gun laws enforced in gun-friendly states?
I can think of several factors that contribute to this.
First, what does it mean for a state to be "gun-friendly"? I mean, most people on the pro-gun side support "reasonable" restrictions — where "reasonable" is often heavily influenced by status-quo bias (the conservative side of the leftward ratchet) — and the "2nd Amendment right to personal nukes" position is mostly just a few fringe (if vocal) libertarian types. And states are not politically homogenous; even your most "gun-friendly" state is going to have plenty of people — particularly in the cities — who support increasing gun restrictions.
In particular, the people in state government — particularly the lawyers and paper-pushing bureaucrats — you'd be counting on to push and coordinate this resistance to enforcement skew both urban and especially college-educated, which means they skew left and anti-gun. (Personnel is policy, and modern forms of government ensure urban leftist personnel.)
Second, way too many on the right are believers in "the rule of law." Like the sportsman who will not respond to a cheating opponent by cheating back because he has too much "respect for the game," they believe in the importance of procedure over outcome — following the rules and doing the right thing over getting better results. They are deontologists and virtue ethicists, not utilitarians. Fiat justitia ruat caelum. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? Better to suffer defeat, torture, and death while upholding your values than to attain a political victory by compromising them. (Because God will reward you for the former and damn you for the latter.)
Indeed, for any "the left is doing [x], why isn't the right doing [x] back?" question you can pose, you're sure to find someone on the right insisting that our steadfast, virtuous refusal to do [x] is the thing that separates us from the left, that to do [x] back would not just be sinking to the level of our enemies, it would be to become our enemy, and that anyone who would consider doing [x] is a leftist, no matter their other positions.
Third, quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi. The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. What works for the left against the right will not necessarily work for the right against the left. Leftists can get away with doing things for left-wing causes that would see rightists punished severely if they tried to use them for right-wing ones. It's not hypocrisy, it's hierarchy.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
20d ago
You left out one of the cases, which was the other context — that is, making use of my Caltech science education, specifically my lab experience from chemistry classes, in the production of methamphetamine.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
20d ago
Well, the Japanese May 15th incident in 1932 and the October 12, 1960 assassination of Asanuma Inejirō are what immediately comes to mind for me. Also from Japan, there's the Isshi incident of July 10, 645; the Sakuradamon incident of March 24, 1860; and the League of Blood incident (a precursor to the May 15 incident).
And, of course, depending on how you define "shift[ing] the course of world history toward something they would have preferred," there's the 47 Rōnin, the revenge of the Soga Brothers, and the Igagoe vendetta.
I guess the lesson might be that it works better in Japan?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22d ago
I'll say that you were right that non-violent defiance wouldn't work, and that we should escalate.
And what will need to come to pass, to convince you that escalation will fail? That it will only provoke greater and greater reprisals, until we're destroyed?
If the defiance accelerates and grows, are you and @TheNybbler going to admit you were wrong?
I'll admit I was wrong about the character of our people. I will still stand by the position that growing defiance will provoke yet worse backlash down upon us, until I see solid evidence that the escalatory spiral doesn't favor Blue government.
You want me to believe you can defeat the Federal government? I'll believe it the day you've actually done it. You want to convince me we can win a civil war? I'll buy it when you've actually fought and won it.
Until you actually go to war, I'll keep on saying you're all talk, and it's all empty saber-rattling.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22d ago
and both Texas and Florida have functioning conservative talent pipelines.
Certainly not ones big enough to replace as much of the Permanent Bureaucracy as would need to be replaced. Assuming, of course, that Trump is even able to actually remove the people currently in place. And assuming he even gets elected.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22d ago
Abbott and DeSantis are coordinating open defiance to the bureaucracy. Maybe they'll lose, but they haven't yet.
When they do, will you change your tune?
The Bureaucracy is losing the fight on gun control, and they are losing it permanently.
That's not what the demographic trends say. And what good is the right to own guns, anyway? You talk about it as a "coordination mechanism" — i.e. something like "when they come for your guns, that's when you fight"; but they're never going to actually "come for your guns" openly, are they? They'll salami-slice here and there some. But if they push leftward on everything else but guns while never actually hitting that line in the sand?
And they are destroying those corporations, in a way that's pretty impossible to hide.
Are they? "Companies That Get ‘Woke’ Aren’t Going Broke — They’re More Profitable Than Ever."
They have a scam that works when we endlessly cooperate with it, and that falls apart if we simply and consistently defect.
But we're cooperators. Defecting is what Leftists do, and using Leftist tactics would make us no better, no different from them (as Hlynka insisted more than once). "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world," et cetera. What defines the Right — the only thing that distinguishes us from our enemy — is our willingness to put absolute adherence to principle over worldly victory, unto martyrdom and death, knowing their can be no real victory in this world anyway, and the only reward to be sought is in the next life, which is why all atheists are Leftists by definition, right? (Again, this is from Hlynka.)
If that defiance doesn't keep escalating like you predict, but instead does "all fizzle out," and Red Tribe mostly backs down like Nybbler and I predict, what will you say then?
That's exactly what a number of Alaskan Republican voters did when Ted Stevens was railroaded, so I don't see why I shouldn't expect at least some of them to do the same with respect to Trump. After all, "Taking the high road" is the only thing that separates us from them, you see. We're the party of Law and Order, and only a Leftist would vote for a felon, so therefore anyone who votes for a felon has ceased to be One Of Us and has become The Enemy. Better to lose while keeping your Sacred Values than to damn your immortal soul to eternal hellfire for a mere election.
More options
Context Copy link