Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
Yes, for 60 some years now what people meant when they said 'Conservative Movement' is dead.
And given what that "conservative movement" looked like, how is that a bad thing for people on the right?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
elected both Bushes four times in total, and won the House nine times (I'll let you guys have 2016, although I think that really was still momentum from the Conservative Movement), the Senate ten times, and brought Republican control of state legislatures and governor's mansions to a numeric height unequaled in a century
And what did the Right get from all that, in terms of concrete outcomes? And I mean wins, not just "well, the left didn't get as much as they could have otherwise."
Why should the right be satisfied with "well, you didn't lose as quickly as you could have"?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
I hate this argument. That the right should accept losing slowly as a "win," because it's not as bad as losing quickly.
I don't remember if it was here, or at the old subreddit, but I remember reading yet another gun control argument, yet another "cake slicing" characterized as a "compromise." When someone asked what exactly the pro-gun side got out of such a compromise, one gun control proponent got quite honest: you get to keep some of your guns for now. You get them taken away slowly, a bit at a time, rather than all at once right now. You get to lose slowly, instead of quickly, and you should be happy with that. It's a very vae victus attitude, an "I am altering the deal; pray I don't alter it any further," attitude.
I'm also reminded of a Nick Freitas video where he complained about a constituent who called him "useless," then spent an hour explaining how state legislatures work, how little power elected politicians have, how the system is rigged against right-wingers so that it's often "lose-lose" — in short, how he's useless. Or, more specifically, that he personally is not useless, but that any right-wing politician in his position playing by "the rules of the game" will be just as impotent.
As I see it, "well, at least you get to lose slowly" isn't an argument for playing the rigged game, it's an argument for flipping the table. Because, as @FCfromSSC notes, even when we "win" electorally, we still end up in the same place.
Sun-tzu says not to fight where you are weak and the enemy is strong, fight where you are strong and the enemy is weak. Your argument is one that says electoral politics is a battleground where the right is weak. So why should we fight on that one, instead of one that's more favorable to us. Because there's one battlefield where we have, if not an advantage, then the least disadvantage — the literal battlefield. We have a lot more guns, more veterans, a lot of favorable geography, control of the food supply, and less dependence on some highly-vulnerable infrastructure.
As I see it, your statement here isn't an argument for why we should seek electoral victories for the Republican party, it's an argument for why we should grab our guns and start shooting.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
This [Northern conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.
— Robert Lewis Dabney, in 1897
What good is this sort of "conservatism", anyway?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
and for those who come to the mainland being better than the ones already here with regards to litter.
And now I'm reminded of a forum post I was once linked to — I think it was referenced by a commenter on a Steve Sailer post — by a puertoriqueño New Yorker complaining about how "the Jews" obviously control New York City, or at least its sanitation department. His argument? That the streets in the "Jewish neighborhoods" were always so much cleaner — free of litter, and especially empty/broken beer bottles — than those of his own, predominantly Puerto Rican neighborhood. This, he concluded, could only be because the Jews were using their control of the city government to have the sanitation department focus on constantly cleaning the litter and beer bottles from the streets of their own neighborhoods, and less on cleaning everyone else's streets. That maybe different groups litter at different rates, and that the inhabitants of predominantly-Jewish neighborhoods simply don't toss empty beer bottles into the street to begin with, never crossed his mind. (What's that old quote, from a Roman author IIRC, about people mistaking their particular cultural norms for universal laws?)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
Because, let's be real here: if WWIII happens, then dealing with SJ is not very hard. Half their voter base will literally die in a fire.
This is a common argument over at Jim's blog — that nuclear war will benefit the right because it's the big lefty cities that will go up in mushroom clouds, not the right-wing countryside. I've had a few objections to this; primarily, given what the competence crisis has done to our government's ability to maintain things — and particularly, the question of tritium production — I'm not sure our nukes will work, meaning I'd expect us to lose WWIII, and that will have serious negative consequences for us regardless of which side wins the internal political conflict.
More personally, I once found a website that let you see the blast radii for various nukes superimposed on a (Google-sourced) city map of your choice. And if your standard Russian or Chinese nuke got dropped on JBER — a reasonable target for either country in a WWIII scenario, especially the former — then I'm outside the "killed almost instantly in the blast" radius… and, unfortunately, inside the "die slowly after an agonizing hour or two from horrible burns down one side of your body" radius.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
but that sort of fight is exactly how this nation was founded
In very different times, under very different conditions (geographic, economic, technological, military…).
and I like our odds
On the basis of what? I, of course, question such optimism…
Certainly the present situation seems preferable to one where we endlessly sacrifice value to support that establishment and receive nothing in return.
…but still agree with this part totally.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
the main difference between it happening openly or behind the scenes is how likely you are to get a revolt.
Which is a bigger concern — the likelihood of a revolt, or the capacity of a potential revolt? I mean, which is the preferable scenario:
-
a 50% chance of a "revolt" that is weak, disorganized, and easily crushed — the sort of thing ordinary law enforcement can handle, no need to call out the troops, or
-
a 5% chance of a strong, organized revolt likely to overthrow the government, and can be stopped only at great cost and with immense damage?
If you're part of the unelected bureaucracy running things, I'd say you'd prefer option 1. Right?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
If it's all unelected bureaucrats/deep state running the show, and everyone knows it? The show is over.
And what would be the problem with "the show" ending? With the sham that voting matters and elected officials have real power ending, in favor of the unelected bureaucrats running the show openly?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21d ago
These people did not need to win popular elections.
Neither do our current elites — I've given my opinion here many times about how voting doesn't matter and "our democracy" is a sham.
And, more importantly, neither do we. Popular democracy (again, mostly a sham) is not a law of nature; it's not even the norm in human history. How did all those aristocratic minorities rule over vastly larger majorities of peasants?
Superior force, that's how. And, as people keep pointing out, which side "owns all the guns"? Which side makes up the rank-and-file fighting men of the military? The beat cops?
Again, history is full of minorities ruling over majorities through greater military capacity. My point is why can't social conservatives just become such a minority, "democracy" be damned?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22d ago
And which side of that conflict was the Red Tribe on?
I mean, contra the degree to which Confederate flags have become something of a "Red Tribe" symbol — even here in Alaska — to speak in Albion's Seed terms, wasn't it mainly the Cavaliers who drove secession, while modern Red Tribe seems to descend more from the Borderers, concentrated in Appalachia, and AIUI, many of their counties in the South voted against secession — see most notably West Virginia, along with eastern Tennessee and Kentucky (see also a bit more here.
But also consider which side lost, and the lessons learned therefrom. One might say that "the South will rise again," but it's been how long? And on just what metric have they "risen" in that time?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22d ago
but social conservatives don’t have the numbers to control the country.
Here's someone willing to argue the contrary.
But even if you don't buy Mrs. Hoyt's arguments about the actual size of the "silent majority" and the margin of fraud, how big a fraction of the population is needed to "control" a country, anyway? I must point again to the German Peasant's War? What size fraction of the population controlled sixteenth century Central Europe? Or America during and just after the Revolution? What were the numbers a pharaoh needed to control Egypt? How many did the Son of Heaven need to rule all of China?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22d ago
When he fails, Red Tribe will inevitably turn to less conciliatory options.
"Inevitably"? I question this in two ways. First, in the abstract, are we not beings with agency? With free will? If we turn to "less conciliatory options," is that not a choice? Thus, we can choose otherwise. We can choose to turn the other cheek. Choose not to sink to our enemy's level, but let it go, be the "bigger men"; maintain our higher moral standards, our more virtuous conduct — the "more conciliatory options," if you will — so as to persuade with the example we set, to overcome evil with good; to not retaliate in kind, but leave such consequences of our enemies' wickedness for a Higher Power to mete out? Is this not in character with what so many of Red Tribe believe? With how we think of ourselves in contrast with Blue Tribe?
Secondly, I've heard people talk in this manner before, about how if our current means fail to hold the line in this or that matter or incident, we'll surely escalate to harder means. And every time, it failed to happen. Why should this time be any different. We've never "turned to less conciliatory options" before. "This time is different." It's never different. What we've always done is most likely what we always will do.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
22d ago
I assume this means acquired infertility.
No, it means that "it takes two to tango" and I've never even been on a date. Middle brother literally fled across the country to get away from a "crazy ex-girlfriend," hasn't dated since, lives with our parents, and holds anti-natal views. Youngest brother and his girlfriend — both also on disability — both have serious health issues, some of which for the latter make pregnancy too risky.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
27d ago
Relevant: From the Wall Street Journal: "Elon Musk’s Secret Conversations With Vladimir Putin":
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a linchpin of U.S. space efforts, has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin since late 2022.
The discussions, confirmed by several current and former U.S., European and Russian officials, touch on personal topics, business and geopolitical tensions.
At one point, Putin asked the billionaire to avoid activating his Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, said two people briefed on the request.
…
At the same time, the contacts also raise potential national-security concerns among some in the current administration, given Putin’s role as one of America’s chief adversaries.
Musk has forged deep business ties with U.S. military and intelligence agencies, giving him unique visibility into some of America’s most sensitive space programs. SpaceX, which operates the Starlink service, won a $1.8 billion classified contract in 2021 and is the primary rocket launcher for the Pentagon and NASA. Musk has a security clearance that allows him access to certain classified information.
…
The billionaire’s conversations with Putin and Kremlin officials highlight his increasing inclination to stretch beyond business and into geopolitics. He has met several times and talked business with Javier Milei of Argentina, as well as former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, whom he defended in an acrimonious online debate.
Putin is on a different order of magnitude. The Russian leader has created an authoritarian system that oversees fraudulent elections and the assassinations of political opponents, for which President Biden called him a “killer.” With keys to one of the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenals and growing territorial ambitions in Europe, Putin has become the U.S.’s chief antagonist.
…
In the past year, Musk and Russia’s interests have increasingly overlapped. Apart from Russia’s use of X for disinformation and Musk’s outspoken opposition to aid to Kyiv, Ukrainian officials said earlier this year that Russian forces occupying the country’s eastern and southern swaths had started using Starlink to enable secure communications and extend the range of their drones.
…
Earlier this year, Musk gave airtime to Putin and his views on the U.S. and Ukraine when X carried Tucker Carlson’s two-hour interview with the Russian leader inside the Kremlin. In that interview, Putin said he was sure Musk “was a smart person.”
There's also a lot in there about Musk and the Trump campaign — subtly implying, but never outright alleging, "Russian Collusion 2.0" with Elon as middleman. But I'm getting a definite "he could be leaking US secrets to Putin" vibe from it. Possible groundwork for espionage charges?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
27d ago
But all I have on you is your post above
Just look through my past comments, and you'll find plenty of details on me and my situation; I've shared them here plenty of times.
Grab a rubber boat, row or motor out to sea as far as you can, tie an anchor to yourself, knock yourself out via sleeping pills or whatnot (I am not a doctor) but poke a hole in your boat before you fall asleep.
Then there's the cost of the boat, and getting it out to sea — Cook Inlet near Anchorage is a silty mess, laden with highly-dangerous mudflats, and the Port is closed off to the general public since 9-11. It would take a costly trip out of town to get to a small boat launch.
Plus, the issue of making sure the pills are strong enough to ensure unconsciousness, because drowning is an awful way to go.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
27d ago
it seems that you can find a based church
Definitely not within walking distance (I don't drive, and the buses are very limited Sunday mornings). Thanks to the racist Samoan church and the Mexican cult church closing down, the nearest are the black Baptist church whose webpage advertises talks from local Democrat politicians, or the Lutheran church with the woman pastor whose LinkedIn page had plenty of "rainbow flag" lefty signaling. I don't know that there's much "community" around the tiny temple of Thai Buddhist monks.
And from talking to a couple of friends, probably not within the city — my Catholic friend, for one, has many a complaint about his local parish. From what I heard, the Anchorage Baptist Temple — whatever it's been since renamed to — went pretty woke after Jerry Prevo retired.
Maybe one of the Orthodox churches just outside of town (i.e. 6 miles away for one, over 9 miles away for the other), if I can somehow find a way to get there.
So, what's keeping you around? Is there family? Friends? A love of leisure? A fear of pain or death?
Family, mostly — specifically, that the costs of disposing of my remains exceeds my net worth, and they'd be on the hook for the remainder.
Definitely not "A love of leisure" — I don't really have any enjoyable pastimes.
I've long ago given up on anything ever making me happy; the only question is if I can find some purpose to keep going through the misery, other than how it'll impact my family. ("But think of how sad they'll be" emotional blackmail is the go-to argument of all my therapists.) Otherwise, at the very least, when my Mom goes I'm done.
The problem is finding a good method that will be relatively quick and painless, and won't leave me even worse off if it doesn't work — people have survived shooting themselves in the brain, and their condition afterwards isn't pretty. (Plus, being in the psych ward after a failed attempt sucks.) Mostly, inert gas asphyxia looks like the way to go, and it doesn't cost too much to rent a helium tank (at least, not yet, but the supply is declining and price rising, so…)
Or I could take one acquaintance up on the offer he once made me to buy me a one-way ticket to Los Angeles after my mom dies, so I can attend a Caltech reunion… and then take out as many SoCal leftists with me "on my way out." As Ezra Pound once said, "I have always thought the suicide should bump off at least one swine before taking off for parts unknown." After all, that may well be my only shot at leaving a legacy behind, the only way that my existence and my pain will have had some purpose and meaning.
Edit: and may I say thank you for not resorting to the usual clichés about how life is always worth living, suicide is never the answer, yadda yadda yadda. Where else, if not a rationalist-adjacent space like this one, can I get people who will rationally assess whether or not a particular life is worth living? Who might conclude that suicide is the reasonable action (and not just tell me to KYS out of emotional animus, politics-driven or otherwise)?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
27d ago
Your only "advice" was that "rare" is not the same as "impossible" — which is the same sort of reasoning about very small probabilities that makes lotteries "a tax on stupidity."
Surviving your parachute failing to open when skydiving isn't literally impossible — a few lucky cases have managed to survive. But is counting on and building plans around that sort of extreme luck a good idea?
I'm pretty sure there's some bits from the Confucians — in keeping with the Master's refusal to discuss 怪力亂神 (strange occurrences, feats of miraculous strength, disorder, and spiritual beings) — about how life must be built upon the regular and predictable, and not around the rare exceptions. "Counting on a miracle" and investing in "not impossible" very-low-probability outcomes is, like playing the lottery, a poor strategy; indicative of several cognitive biases (difficulty with very small numbers, selection bias — you hear about the rare successes more than the many, many, many, many, many, many, many failures — optimism bias, sunk-cost fallacy once started…).
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
27d ago
have you considered suicide?
Frequently, for the last 20 years. My first psychiatric hospitalization, and being put on meds, was following an attempt when I was at Caltech back in 2004.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
27d ago
When people give you advice about how to solve (insert problem here), you need to actually try to take the advice.
I'll do that when they start giving advice that isn't totally useless to me and my situation.
The vast majority of self improvement has to come from you believing that it's possible
I don't believe it's possible, and I think I have good, solid reasons for that belief. And all people like you provide are vague generalities and feel-good slogans, not solid, specific evidence against my view.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
27d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Douglas_(Illinois_politician)
That was WWII. I can't imagine the modern US military taking a 50-year old — it would require a rather serious war, and nowadays, you'd get the nukes flying long before it reaches that point.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
27d ago
age (I'm guessing mid-late 30s)
About to turn 43.
As for background: Disabled. Living in Alaska. Failed my duty as eldest sibling to continue the family line (and my younger brothers certainly aren't going to do it). Failing to do anything to contribute to the survival of my people, against their many and powerful enemies. Failing to do anything productive with my 151 IQ. Failing to leave any legacy. Living by stealing money from the pockets of hard-working Americans — and worse, not even having the courage and masculine fortitude to do it myself, but by outsourcing my banditry to the state.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
27d ago
why in the hell would they be expected to want and know exactly what is best for others' children?
To paraphrase the attitudes of various teachers and administrators my mother had to deal with over the course of my public school education: because while any two fertile, horny morons of opposite sexes can have a kid — they don't even have to get a license or take a class first — educators are trained professionals with the credentials to prove they know what's good for kids better than the kids' non-credentialed parents.
In short: I (the teacher) have a degree in Education and you (the parent) don't, therefore I always automatically know better than you when it comes to your own kid.
Because the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
More options
Context Copy link