hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
15d ago
This seems like such a superficial take.
In the end, none of this happened since his death got bogged down in endless conspiracies.
So if there had not been conspiracies, the 'true conservatives' could have shown themselves and done the right thing? Yeah, I'm pressing X to doubt.
If there's one thing more delusional than the Q anon phenotype that exists on the right, it's the self proclaimed elite human capital on the opposite end.
'Conspiracies' and anti-authoritarianism have always been a thing on the right. This has nothing to do with MAGA. If anything MAGA is just a symptom of how poorly America has been managed. This is what decades of American right wing political theory has lead us to. On that front I don't think there's anything less worthy of respect than a gaggle of self proclaimed kings who try to justify their right to rule through how much they despise the peasants.
This captures why most people aren't actually against immigration. When they reach the precipice of telling other people: "No, you can't live here with us", they buckle. And it's not really a surprise given the media most people consume. For decades, news and entertainment have inundated the public with emotionally charged narratives venerating empathy for the outgroup. When boundary enforcement is systematically framed as moral cruelty, conservative voters absorb and even revel in that emotional conditioning. They favor closed borders in the abstract, but the moment execution demands personal backbone, their media-ingrained impulse to 'be soft' takes over.
To put things in context, conditons haven't been this bad for the left base since Bush Jr. Their footsoldiers are getting killed or jailed for their anti-ICE stunts that provide no tangible political or material benefit to them. They are to some extent demoralized to a point where their political coalition is fracturing in very polarizing ways.
All the right wing has to do is put their foot on the pedal and drive it home. Do a Charlie Kirk legislation, then do another, and another. Demonize 'protestors' who don't strictly abide by every law in the book. Arrest them on the spot. Call them terrorists. Raid their chat groups for dirt, sick the FBI on their parents or neighbors and ask about their childrens or neighbors potential terrorist activities. Every high card has been in the right wings hand for what, a year now? But no, neither the republican politicians or the republican electorate has the guts to maintain their society.
Law and Order is a slogan, not an actual thing most right wingers believe in. They feel angry when reading stories about repeat violent offenders miraculously getting off scot free for the umpteenth time, only to go out to maim or murder again. But there's no organizing around that problem. No consistent emotional animation. Not having law and order when convenient is just another thing the left gets to do that's filed under 'I guess that's just how things are now'. It's actually easier for right wingers in general and conservatives in particular to tolerate the raping and pillaging of their village than kicking out the rapists and pillagers since one has no positive emotional resonance in media whilst the other does. Not all outsiders are pillagers and rapists, don't you know?
I'm imagining that free white men of good character don't need to be weighed down by the obvious excesses of the luxurious societies they build. Part of maintaining that luxury for everyone is recognizing that it's just that, a luxury.
The short of it is that a sizeable portion of the population can't formulate a coherent idea of 'law' or anything similar that isn't just a system existing to personally benefit them. Having such people make decisions is untenable. And the weight of living under that system, knowing what it's made up of, makes everything more precarious.
Those folks are in one camp. Another camp tries to reason themselves away from this reality by pretending that what's going on isn't that, but some other factor: 'The law is actually complex, you see. 'Mental health is a serious issue!' None of these are real, none of these are relevant. It's just cope because there is no worldview that can both accurately fit in the Lindsay Clancy fans and not be incredibly sexist at the same time.
The feminist mantra of 'What's best for mom is what's best for baby' when talking about abortion isn't some one-off, it's a declaration of what reality is to them and how you're supposed to see it. The women supporting this aren't insane themselves, they just found a resonator in Lindsay who they can dump all their emotions into. And that's the thing, it's emotions they have. If they had at any point decided to kill their own babies, they believe they should not be punished for it. Their emotions aren't just valid, they're reality. And that's the system you live under today.
There is no delicate offramp here for the civil and socialized, who would sooner die than blemish their own ego by earnestly engaging in a low brow culture war, so they just close their eyes and keep driving straight, with no concern to where that leads. Which is how we got to where we are now.
hanikrummihundursvin
27d ago
I'm not seeing the good reason. We're not living under a traditionalist society. Our leaders are not self-sacrificing. It's just a death spiral of weak men failing shit tests put to them by self interested women.
hanikrummihundursvin
27d ago
Karen Straughan managed to occupy a very odd niche of a woman who ingrouped men. Whilst I didn't keep up with Straughan entirely, so I would not be in the know if she foided out at any point, she is still seemingly the only woman that has earnestly done this publicly.
Most of the time this doesn't happen until women are old. And then it's not always a case of them ingrouping men but rather outgrouping a lot of women. Similar to how Ann Coulter is often at odds with her own gender due to political differences.
If we contrast Karen with the modern 'conservative' women and many of the 'MRA' women, who placed themselves as anti-feminist in some way, they were and are just making feminist arguments in a roundabout way. Where 'feminism and the left' are bad because it's bad for conservative women. What's actually good for women is traditionalism! Well... That's still revolving around what's good for women. I always saw that as completely different from 'This is bad because it's bad for boys and men'.
And when one sees through that you recognize it's just another permutation of the eternal feminist paradox, where the definition of feminism rests on who is defining who the 'real women' are. And all feminists who disagree with one another do is assert that they and those who agree with them are the real women.
Most modern influencer women who play the role of the conservative/anti-feminist can't keep the act up for long. They're self interested parties. They don't ingroup men, they ingroup women. Or are complete narcissists. That's the lesson that's been learned. They will say and do things for money like a cam girl will.
I had thought the 'boy mom' thing would maybe spiral into women and mothers interested in the welfare of their sons and by extension boys and men in general, but it kind of says it on the tin. It's more about a new identity for women of sorts.
To conclude, one can always easily sniff out who is an actual interested party with regards to the welfare of men. They ask and answer 'Is this good for men, yes or no? The e-thots can't do this. The 'boy moms' can't do this. The wifeguys and girldads can't do this. It's not that you need to be a good liar even. There are plenty of grifters and frauds in these spaces. They just can't maintain the act.
hanikrummihundursvin
28d ago
How is that inconsistent?
If you enter the 'Who can get kicked in the nuts the hardest' contest and nab first place, where does that leave us? I can recognize that you placed 1st. I can also recognize the icepack on your groin. To ultimately conclude that you won nothing. Repeatedly telling me you 'won' because you placed 1st or that some other guy took a kick much worse than yours doesn't change that.
As I said prior: America in your context is just US foreign policy as dictated by zionists. No American person living an American life sees benefit from any of this. This is just money out of their pocket. The ZOG of America has more leverage in the middle east now. That's the actual extent of your definition of victory. In other areas, that operate on non-zionist assumptions, America is worse off along with the rest of the world.
hanikrummihundursvin
28d ago
We are now two thirds of the way towards how things were prior to us attacking our enemy. None of this has benefitted a single American that is not a zionist. Total Victory!
All Western legal theory falls apart when the subjects of the law start viewing the enforcers of the law as just another competing tribe. Same thing happens when the enforcers of law start viewing the subjects as a competing tribe.
To that end these discussions are very quaint. No one is interfacing with reality.
More options
Context Copy link