How to put the fear of God into liberals

mozilla-firefox-logo

On the heels of the recent politically-motivated dismissal of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, a number of thinkers have questioned the wisdom of this “soft totalitarian” approach toward quashing conservative values.

Of all sources, pro-gay-marriage writer Andrew Sullivan writes against the hounding:

It turns out that Eich might have saved his job had he recanted, like all heretics must. But given the choice of recanting, he failed. Hence the lighting of the fires:

Throughout the interviews, it was not hard to get the sense that Eich really wanted to stick strongly by his views about gay marriage, which run counter to much of the tech industry and, increasingly, the general population in the U.S. For example, he repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he would donate to a similar initiative today.

Instead, he tried to unsuccessfully hedge those sentiments and, perhaps more importantly, did not seem to understand that he might have to pay the inevitable price for having them. Thus, something had to give — and it did.

He did not understand that in order to be a CEO of a company, you have to renounce your heresy! There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents must be purged! Yep, that’s left-liberal tolerance in a nut-shell. No, he wasn’t a victim of government censorship or intimidation. He was a victim of the free market in which people can choose to express their opinions by boycotts, free speech and the like. He still has his full First Amendment rights.

Many conservative writers are suggesting a boycott of Mozilla in response. Some have even noticed the hand of a corporate monopoly behind it. But in my view, boycotts of one company for one incident of many that are part of an ongoing problem is not enough.

We are dealing with two issues here: (1) the persecution of conservatives via “soft totalitarian” methods and (2) the ongoing question of whether conservatives and liberals can co-exist in the same society.

Let us look at this from the perspective of a Realist, or someone whose bottom line is functionality and the design of things that work. In other words, we are not ideologues, nor are we politically-minded; we care what works, not what we can declare “should be” or “should work” and then go home.

The persecution of conservatives has steadily accelerated over the past sixty-nine years. Much as happened in Revolutionary France and in the Soviet Union, the official centralized authority has declared that any belief but its own is insane, morally wrong, and must be crushed. The difference with “soft” totalitarianism is that the crushing is done by our fellow citizens using legal methods like boycotts, ostracization, and so on. Looking back over American law since WWII, it seems that this was always the intention, which was to marginalize any viewpoint except that of the left.

While this process takes a leftist face, it is my opinion that what we’re actually seeing here is a universal tendency of human groups called Crowdism. When radical individuals gather, they form a Crowd based not on what they want, but on a desire for no obligations or values to impede their pursuit of personal desires. Once they’ve formed a lynch mob, they go on a witch-hunt for realists so that there will be no dissenting voices, so that the Crowdists can be as individualistic as they please. Society becomes dysfunctional at that point and collapses shortly thereafter, but Crowdists never notice this because narcissists (or as I call them, solipsists) are generally oblivious to anything but themselves. Reality is usually an unwelcome surprise for such people.

Looking at the process from this top-down view, it’s clear that no amount of compromise, reasoning, etc. is going to stop the hate-train. They will continue until they eliminate us and then eliminate themselves, leaving behind a burnt-out wasteland with third-world levels of corruption, hygiene, disorder and lack of public services.

This ties into the second question, which is whether conservatives and liberals can co-exist in the same society. Liberalism is a Messianic philosophy that, in order to suppress reality, has invented an alternate reality. Because that is a reality replacement, anyone who does not accept it is a threat. Thus liberal philosophies must crush dissenters (good parody here) or there’s a threat that someone might opt-out of the fantasy reality and people will see that the Emperor has no clothes and all will end badly for the left.

And with those two questions out of the way, we might ask ourselves: what should conservatives do about this?

We have tried live and left live, but as the above shows, that cannot work. We have tried compromise, but that ends up creating mainstream conservative parties that are half-liberal and thus lose their actual constituents and fail to gain any new ones, who’d rather have full liberalism instead because it’s easier and promises more freebies. We have tried making moral objections and calling for fairness, but to a Messianic belief system, the only fairness is in crushing our evil and replacing it with their “good.” So what to do?

I suggest we try the one thing we have traditionally refused to try: we become threatening. In particular, I think we should remind people that actions have consequences.

Right now, you can grow up in this society, adopt crazy liberal views, and go through your life with reasonable certainty that you will never suffer any real consequences for them. After all, conservatives generally play fair and view political views as separate from job performance, your fitness as a neighbor, and so on.

I suggest that we attack the weakest link in that chain, which is youth. Anders Breivik hit on one version of this by shooting young Communists, which encouraged parents across Norway to withdraw their children from leftist programs because suddenly — wake up call! — their kids are at risk from participating in such things. I suggest we do something similar here, which is to identify teenage leftists and find ways to exclude them from jobs, schools, and other opportunities. I suggest we hit them so hard that their parents realize that far from a harmless trend, leftism will damage their children’s futures. At that point, parents are going to stop supporting such things.

And what about the kids? Won’t this just encourage them to be more leftist, like smoking dope and listening to heavy metal? No, because unlike those two, the consequences here are real. A kid caught with small amounts of marijuana faces little actual legal action unless that kid has priors. There’s also little risk of being caught when everyone else is doing it and none of them are facing any consequences. That changes when it is no longer a question of law enforcement. Kids like rebellion that won’t really get them in trouble. They tend to avoid rebellion that does get them into trouble, like hard drugs or joining neo-Nazi gangs. If we can extend the same stigma to leftism, the next generation will drop it and bury the current ones as they age.

Leftists can’t object to this. After all, it’s their own strategy reversed onto them. Turnabout is fair play. And since it’s clear they intend to genocide conservatives as surely as the passenger pigeon, we should counteract this not with an impotent boycott of Mozilla, but with an attack on liberalism itself.

9 Comments

  1. LoreTek says:

    I wish to know how they get away with using words like Bigot and Heresy. Traditionally used by religious groups to describe people such as themselves.

    If you are interested in how what we talk about here pertains to youth, very much so, in the video game world, continue reading. I was just talking with a friend who said “you hate the liberal agenda don’t you?” and I thought of something. I wish it were an agenda. But as you can see below, it has no agenda, it’s a mindset that all the physical effects are born from.

    -

    As for identifying the youth that is liberal or that will be come liberal, this is not difficult, especially in the online and gaming community. The traditional enemy of any skilled player is the “cheeser” and “troll”. Once called out by the community, they create, instantly like oil in water, a counter community that protects and retaliates against these accusations. Exactly like leftists, they will use unarguable rhetoric, almost always revolving around “I can do whatever I want”.

    This is very apparent in the world of “Dark Souls 2″. Heralded for its “metal” attitude, tight game play, brutal consequences, and lore that makes you question the real world. The series is a masterpiece among candylands.

    But, like everything else, the individualist cancer has seeped into its competitive play as well.

    Without going too far into it, whats basically happening is people are using cheap tactics to win, or to upset you, so they can cover for their lack of cunning. But like any good radical group they have banded together and have turned the tables on the traditional player. They will collectively lie. They will use “we” like you are speaking out against a group. They will tell you to adapt and innovate….to them.

    The players that just want a fair, honest, and true test of their abilities, have become the underdogs. Much like the true conservative that wants the same thing in society.

    I went a little overboard here: http://redd.it/21pw3o but remember, it’s reddit, it’s bread and butter is overboard.
    A great introduction to the game series can be viewed on Youtube here and more in depth view of the mechanics here
    so you can see what the “kids-of-crowdism” are ruining.

    -

    To them, it is not about honor or respect – it is about counter honor and counter respect – presumable because no one gave them any. I have learned that they will never understand. It is simply not how they think; it is not what motivates them. They cannot put the two, cause and effect, together. Explanation only strengthens their resolve.

    This parallels the world at large so well as I watch our institutions, communities, online forums, and news stations become mini-systems of liberal corruption. Frankly, I know deep down, it is unbeatable, that is the unavoidable truth of all this.

    It is The Curse.

    The liberal, solipsistic, troll-ridden, chaotic, hell hole that our world, and everything man-made in it are slowly changing into, is hard to watch and impossible to look away from. It eats away at me every waking moment. I see it everywhere, in everything, coating everyone. Like rust, it is changing something strong and radiant into something brittle, pitted and dull. It used to make me laugh, now it just makes me ill.

    1. crow says:

      Fear not. Take heart. Yours is a rare opportunity. How many get to witness, in real time, the collapse of Rome? You might record it for later generations, to come. Sing songs, tell stories.
      It might even surprise you by not crashing, after all.
      It hurts, for sure. But pain is what life usually is.
      With moments of pure bliss, for spice.

  2. crow says:

    There is no longer anything good about ‘good parody’.
    Because leftists do not recognize parody, irony, or humor.
    They read such things and take them at face value.
    So, in the case of the supplied link, they will now do exactly what the parody invites them to do: go after the job of anyone who disagrees with their ideology.
    Oh, wait a minute…
    It was a parody, wasn’t it?
    Are you sure?

  3. Brett is hitting on something with which I firmly agree. In order to beat the left at their own game, we have to use their tactics. Social exclusion and ostracism are the way to accomplish our mission.

    1. crow says:

      Good in principle, harder in reality.
      How do you socially exclude and ostracize those who have pre-empted you by socially excluding and ostracizing you first?
      It goes against the grain, anyway.
      Still, hating people nominated as enemies, also goes against the grain, but in time of war-emergency, one has to start doing things one doesn’t ordinarily wish to do.

      1. I don’t quite understand what the second part of your comment means. I mean this part: “Still, hating people nominated as enemies, also goes against the grain, but in time of war-emergency, one has to start doing things one doesn’t ordinarily wish to do.” Could you explain a little more?

        1. crow says:

          Ah. Nothing to explain. I am notorious as the master of the inexplicable metaphor. When the chips are down, one does what one must, regardless of what one prefers.

  4. Hauer says:

    The appeal of crowdism is very easy to understand. People will always follow anything that gives power.

    Why were all of these employees threatening to quit Mozilla? It wasn’t because they had a sincere disagreement about Eich’s beliefs. It was about something much simpler than that. They saw they held someone’s livelihood in their hands. That kind of power has an intoxicating affect. It made them feel like they could make a difference.

    People will continue to flock to the crowdist mentality until it no longer has any effect. If society ever really wants to stop this kind of behavior, it needs to start ignoring these desperate attempts for attention. The easiest way discourage any behavior is to remove the reward of power it gives.

  5. TMLutas says:

    To beat the left it is important that we do *not* use their tactics. Play hardball? Sure. But it should be a type and style of hardball that strikes especially well at their weaknesses. Their style is structured to strike at our own weaknesses and mirroring it will not work as well for us.

    Identifying their incoherence and calling them on it so they end up in full on embarrassing raving mode wedges their knowledgeable proponents (the largely irredeemable) from the much larger group of fellow travelers. Splitting them and helping the mushy middle become our partisans instead of theirs is the road to victory but we have to use our own tactics, our own strategies to accomplish this task and achieve ultimate success.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.615 seconds