The right wing fragments its own vote again

If the right-wing has a fatal flaw, it is that it is not an external ideology but an internal one.

External ideologies are a series of logical statements that you approve of, and assume that their results are identical to what they say their goals are. Such as “all people should be equally, so we’ll use law to make them equal, and then they will be equal.”

Internal ideologies are based on a desire for good results, which requires understanding of (a) a sense of what is good (b) how reality works and (c) the consequences of any given act. They are far more complex than external ideologies, although you’ll never hear that from external ideologues!

The right-wing is composed of different people who arrive at the same conclusion through experience, gut feeling or inherent outlook. They don’t trust external ideologies because such things are inherent control mechanisms, like advertising, propaganda and social fictions.

The left-wing, on the other hand, is composed of people who are united in their obedience to a certain simple idea. They all believe in absolute equality of the individual wherever possible, and naturally “possible” gets stretched farther than is realistic.

Liberalism/leftism (all degrees of the same: anarchism, Democrats, socialism, Communism) are eternally popular because they pitch an idea which has universal appeal.

This idea is victimhood. It starts by saying: you should be able to do whatever you want. However, what limits you in that is not reality itself, but those who interpret reality for you, namely kings, institutions, experts, police, etc. Therefore, these people are mean and horrible, and they owe you a living, and you should fight them so that everyone is equal and has the same free living.

Its secondary manifestations are all the issues we’re familiar with: socialized medicine (free care), no national borders (free movement), sexual liberation, welfare and entitlements, unionization, lots of rules to protect the little guy, etc.

If you oppose any of these things, it’s because you’re a meanie.

If you say something they disagree with, it’s wrong and stupid and they don’t have to listen.

It’s back to schoolyard ethics: everybody needs to find a gang of friends who will support them, and if anything happens to any one member of the gang, the people who did it are wrong and the whole gang will attack.

And they call us tribalists!

The leftist victimhood idea is totally polarizing. You are either for it, or against it. If you’re not for it, you will be socially ostracized by those who support it. Worse, it proselytizes; its converts are rewarded for making new converts. Those will only include other converts in their reindeer games. Thus it spreads like a cancer.

Opposing this chaos is difficult because no realistic ideas are as simple as external ideologies. Despite all the secondary issues, leftist voters are single-issue voters in a yes/no context. Does this plan increase individual equality? If not, destroy it.

The right is fragmented because it is composed of many different viewpoints, for whom any one particular issue is not polarizing, and thus like all majorities it is slower to mobilize and vulnerable to attack from the more radically polarized single-issue voters:

In the theories that fail Olson’s test the fact that it would be in the collective interest of some group to have a particular result, even counting the costs of providing the result, is turned into the assumption that it would be in the interest of each individual in the group to bear the individual costs of contributing to the group’s collective provision. If the group has an interest in contributing to provision of its good, then individual members are (sometimes wrongly) assumed to have an interest in contributing. – “The Free Rider Problem,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In cases of external ideology, the voters are unified on that issue; in cases of internal ideology, what the voters want is indefinable, which is a certain type of civilization or way of life, and this cannot be quantified in issues; it’s a whole.

The result is that the external ideologues chip away at this whole by attacking it through “issues” that they deconstruct and isolate from their immediate and long term consequences on the whole.

Individuals deserve this, they claim, and to oppose it is to “hate” those individuals. And if it causes a way of life to fall apart, a culture to be destroyed? Not on their radar and they’ll use their individual freedom to refuse to admit its validity or even parse it. They will push it away like a threatening thought.

If you wondered why failed societies tended to grow powerful, grow smart, grow technology advanced, grow humanistic and then implode, leaving behind third-world kleptocracies whose leaders are straight out of Idiocracy, now you know.

For those of us on the right to succeed, we need to get behind our equivalent of a single-issue: we want an internal ideology, which is our enjoyment of a lifestyle.

I suggest we use the keyword Mayberry, after the fictional town in the Andy Griffith show. It’s the classic American (and European) ideal: innocent, natural, honest, moral and proud.

We want, independent of technology, a certain way of life: family-centric, traditional morals, sanctity of life, conservation of nature, skepticism toward human notions, reverence for the eternal, and an incentive to challenge ourselves personally so we grow morally, intellectually, spiritually and physically.

This returns us to the question of this writing. The left is unified on a single issue, and the right tends to fragment when opposing them. We pick too many different candidates, where they have one. We have too many different issues, where they have one. When it comes time to vote, they all do the same thing, and we do not, thus they get a plurality.

There are people now who are telling you that voting is useless, like checking six of one versus half-dozen of another. Others insist that you vote for Ron Paul or other fringe candidates who are admirable but don’t have a whole platform. Still others think you should drop out and do nothing and wait for the collapse.

My response is simple: vote for whatever candidate is closer to Mayberry, and then put the pressure on that candidate to go increasingly in that direction.

Mitt Romney and the GOP have already responded to Ron Paul by adopting many of his ideas, as they’ve responded to social conservatives and paleoconservatives by adopting Paul Ryan as his running mate, and now they’re about to respond to paleoconservatives and nationalists.

They won’t do that if paleoconservatives and nationalists threaten to fragment the vote. Instead, paleoconservatives and nationalists need to get behind the Republican party, put a respectable face on their beliefs, and demonstrate how these beliefs offer a better way of life to the majority.

This strategy is currently working for Marine Le Pen, and it works everywhere we try it. Anything else — extremism, drop-outism, fragmentation, radicalism — has failed everywhere it has been tried. Our opponents don’t want us to realize this, and send people among us to encourage factionalism and disunity.

If you want triumph this election, realize that it will not come on a plate. You need to find what is closest to it, promote that, and then in the next election, get even closer. Anything else is giving up before the fight.

51 Comments

  1. thordaddy says:

    Internal ideologies are based on a desire for good results, which requires understanding of (a) a sense of what is good (b) how reality works and (c) the consequences of any given act. — Brett Stevens

    (a) What is good is objective Supremacy. Actually, it’s the best.

    (b) Man CANNOT float.

    (c) He strives towards Supremacy with his faith-affirming acts OR he is in descent facing inevitable self-annihilation.

    1. Oh god, you’re still banging on about “supremacy”.

      There is no objective criteria. Please stop. What is good is subjective. It comes down to who has the most effective subjective.

      1. thordaddy says:

        Buttercup Dew,

        I don’t appreciate your desire to derail my line of thought with what amounts to ????

        What are you trying to say?

        A man should not attempt to strive towards Supremacy?

        Instead, he should strive towards “equality?”

        Or, can you articulate some third way that involves floating in between those “extremes?”

        What is Jesus Christ but THE “objective criteria?”

        Honestly, you’re just a liberationist without explicitly identifying as one.

        I call those types radical autonomists.

        They say things like, “There is no objective criteria.”

        So what are you arguing for, anyway?

        1. Lisa Colorado says:

          Thordaddy, Jesus was a Hebrew man. How do you reconcile that in white supremacy?

          ‘subjective’ means something that has to be taken for what it is, doesn’t it?

          I was just doing my studies today and I had an insight. I don’t think there’s any kind of a perfectible person, there isn’t any 100 percent health, there is no heaven. The answer lies in learning to do better with what you’re given. Learn to understand your neurosis so when it rises up you can deal with it. (I mean the general you, not you specifically.)

          I think this is a conservative idea when taken along with the notion that you can’t excuse yourself to glorify your weaknesses, but you have to accept them and work with them.

          What you’re saying about supremacy sounds like the term ‘jihad’ to me, the inner struggle to overcome.

          1. thordaddy says:

            Lisa Colorado,

            It is quite easy to reconcile and please understand that jihad is an avowed enemy of white Supremacy.

            Look, white Supremacy isn’t something I just created out of my imagination. The concept, whether seen as a concrete reality or a mass delusion was present way before I came to this earth.

            Ask yourself why one would preach, teach and embrace “equality?”

            Ask yourself who exactly is going to save the West, i.e., the WHITE man?

            Reality is always particular. Jesus was a very particular man. His Jewishness only told that he was a man among men. But his perfectness told us he transcended his fellow man. This FACT is so offensive to the liberationist that his war on the perfectness OF ONE MAN is two thousand years old.

            The substantive part of white Supremacy is the “Supremacy” with the “white” part giving it a particular flavor. A collectivist flavor WITHOUT tyrannical intent.

            If a voluntariily collective of white men decided on their own free will to strive towards Supremacy then what you will have are a group of white Supremacists.

            And really, who can save the white man other those white man that collectively strive towards Supremacy?

        2. crow says:

          Told ya.
          The word ‘supremacist’ brings out resistance in almost everybody. We know your stance now, and that you are white, so why not drop the spiky nomenclature?
          We would, I imagine, like to welcome you, but you have, so far, been making it difficult.

          1. thordaddy says:

            Yes Crow…

            That’s because most people are anti-Supremacy and they ease their weakened ego by calling their belief a desire for “equality.”

            We despise “equality” FOR THE VERY FACT that it relentlessly prohibits us from striving towards Supremacy AS WHITE MEN.

            1. crow says:

              A weakened ego is what I am all about. So I don’t see that as something to avoid. Ego is for teenagers, and I haven’t been one of those for about 900 years.
              On the other hand, I see the notion of ‘equality’ as far beyond absurd. A child’s daydream. So we accord on that.
              But this supremacist thing…
              To me, a supremacist suggests someone who desires supremacy. Which in turn suggests he does not have it. Which would mean he is not supreme. Either he is, or he is not. If he is, then why would he bother calling himself that, like some Hollywood Despot? If he isn’t, then who, or what, is going to deliver this supremacy to him?
              Either way, supremacy doesn’t interest me at all. In almost exactly the same way that equality doesn’t, either.
              Some folks like it; to me it is a case of N/A.

              1. thordaddy says:

                crow,

                If you are a white man who does not believe in “equality” then BY LIBERAL DEFINITION you are a “white Supremacist” whether you like it or not.

                What else do you call white men who are anti-egalitarians?

                What are you EXACTLY, anyway?

                The LIBERAL wants you to reject “white Supremacy” not because it is evil and degenerate but because it is the exact opposite. It is good and life-affirming AND the radical liberationist has no use for those types. The radical liberationist is in to self-annihilation.

                I really don’t need to elaborate further.

                Anti-egalitarians ARE Supremacists. There is no way around this.

                1. Anon says:

                  So you’re saying you’re following liberal definitions of what anti-egalitarians are, and what white supremacists are?

                  1. thordaddy says:

                    Anon…

                    White Supremacy can be defined in two manners. It can be defined Truthfully or it can be defined fallaciously. The latter definition IS the radical liberal definition.

                    Ergo,

                    Supremacy = degeneracy

                    Thus,

                    White Supremacist = white degenerate.

                    But this is SELF-EVIDENTLY false

                    A does not B.

                    Supremacy = Supremacy

                    Thus,

                    White Supremacist = White Supremacist.

                    And what is a white Supremacist?

                    A white man that strives towards Supremacy.

                    He is the antithesis of the radical liberationist who strives towards “equality.”

                    The radical liberal’s definition of a white Supremacist is a white man that rejects “equality.”

                    So we are what they say we are BUT we are also so much more than they dare comprehend.

                    To reject “equality” as a white man is to affirm life as a white man. A liberated “white” man is not white at all and could care less if all other whites went out of existence. He thinks because “white” is a social construct that it is meaningless or can be disregarded without consequence. In fact, that is exactly his intended goal. He desires to be liberated from being seen as “white man.” He fears, loathes and just plain hates the STANDARD that white Supremacy has set and the burdens, responsibilities and sacrifices it requires.

                    But look…

                    You are in no way coerced or connived into accepting a “white” identity. You may strive towards Supremacy with whatever color skin you possess. In fact, we could use some real genuine black Supremacists on the scene to counterbalance the radically liberal black collective. Maybe you’re a black Supremacist in the making?

                    1. crow says:

                      You remind me of those pesky Jehovah’s Witnesses that crash in, uninvited, and with a breathtaking lack of respect, assume nobody but them knows anything about anything. They don’t listen; they don’t hear.

                      Many of the things you say make sense, it’s true, but it’s a bit like teaching the alphabet to university students: they covered all that, already, some time ago. Hopefully, anyway.

                      There are no supremacists here. You are the only one. That’s fine with us. Is it fine with you?

        3. A man should not attempt to strive towards Supremacy?

          Instead, he should strive towards “equality?”

          Perhaps this dichotomy is not all there is, and there are other options.

          1. thordaddy says:

            Mr. Stevens,

            If that were the case, I have no doubt you would have your mind on it. But really, even the liberationists are seeking to establish their own “absolute truth.”. So there is no real dichotomy at all. There is only a war between two competing absolute truths.

            Man strives towards Supremacy.

            versus

            Man strive towards “equality.”

            Only the mad suggest Man strive to decline.

            But seriously, compared to Man striving towards Supremacy, man striving towards “equality” IS in decline.

            You’re a Supremacist, Mr. Stevens. Your writings are undeniable evidence of this truthful characterization. This is a compliment in normally ordered world.

  2. Ted Swanson says:

    I completely agree. Be idealistic in the long term and pragmatic in the short term. I don’t believe things have to get even worse before they get better. That’s fatalism. Who the hell would ever know when the turning point happens? Get excited about Romney/Ryan and let’s win!

    1. Lisa Colorado says:

      If we wait for things to hit rock bottom we will lose a lot. We’ve got a long way to go, since the US is a huge country with strong people and great ideals.

      1. I think we’ve emotionally hit rock bottom, and that’s bad enough. If we wait for everything to truly fall apart, we leave behind a wasteland and have that much farther to climb. Silly pragmatists, we.

  3. Barbarossa says:

    Very interesting article sir.

    I have a question your Mayberry ideal. What do you mean by ‘sanctity of life’? Usually when I hear this phrase it has an overtly egalitarian meaning. Holding all life to be equal in the broad sense I agree with. Saying this human life is equal to another concerns me.

    1. Ted Swanson says:

      Don’t let egalitarians define ‘sanctity of life.’ Sanctity means sacred, not equal.

      I actually think Paul Ryan drew a pretty good, basic distinction the other day: human rights are granted by God and nature, not the government/State.

      1. Barbarossa says:

        I understand the meaning of sanctity. That’s where the problem is drawn. Sacred states inherent value in things that may not have any.

        These human rights people speak of are not granted by anything or anyone other than the individual. As a sentient being we have the right to do whatever we like and act however we like, so long as it is within our ability. Government and your neighbors are there providing punishment if you infringe too much on another’s right.

        1. Ted Swanson says:

          I’m thinking ‘sanctity of life’ refers to the sanctity of life, in general, and not necessarily an inherent value within particular things or individuals.

        2. Ted Swanson says:

          And the Paul Ryan thing about “human rights.” Don’t quote me on that, it was off the top of my head, he may not have actually said “human rights.” Just for the record.

      2. ferret says:

        human rights are granted by God and nature

        J. Evola remarked once the very notion of rights implies inequality; otherwise it wouldn’t make sense.

  4. Anon says:

    This thordaddy guy is hilarious… I suppose with a moniker like that you kind have to be eh?

    1. thordaddy says:

      Anon,

      There is nothing “hilarious” about being in a society that wants to drag you under right after they tell you how evil you are for attempting to catch your last breath.

      Your stab at mockery just exposes how detached you are from a particularly palpable reality. Need I say that you exist in a radically liberated state? At least in relation to the commentators on this blog?

      If it was only a matter of saving one’s own neck then there wouldn’t even be this blog and all this collective consternation. The fact of the matter is that we can’t save our own necks. Individually, we are practically nothing against the forces of radical liberation.

      What is the answer to a collective descent where the individual cannot save himself?

      Use logic.

      Use common sense.

      Use anything that you have at your disposal?

      But please answer the question…

      1. crow says:

        He was, it would appear, mocking you, not the larger situation.
        I can understand why you wouldn’t appreciate being mocked, but you do invite it.

        We are all very concerned indeed, about the terminal decline of western civilization, and that is why we read, and comment, on this blog; but consider this alternate viewpoint:
        Each person can save themselves by learning how not to subscribe to, or be taken in by liberalism/leftism. And themselves are the only people they are actually able to save.

        There is little to be done about the larger decline, other than to not be part of it. With enough people not being part of it, it withers away and dies, hopefully before it takes everyone with it.
        We say, I say, it is, the best that any individual can do.

        You seem to want desperately to start some crazy movement by recruiting people to wave your highly unpopular banner. I say it is movements that got us in this mess in the first place.

        Do you know much about fascism? You seem more a fascist, than anything else. I have nothing against that whole philosophy, but I am not, and will not be becoming one, any time soon.

        1. thordaddy says:

          crow,

          No…

          I’m starting no movement. I’m just trying to speak in a more truthful manner.

          One cannot be mocked by a radical liberationist as such a thing has no leg to stand on.

          What is he mocking?

          That the belief in objective Supremacy IS the logical STARTING point in the effort to reverse ALL manner of decline?

          You can’t mock that. Your “mockery” only attests to your self-annihilating ways.

          You no more want a solution to imminent decline than you want to be seen as white and thriving.

          Again, if saving one’s OWN NECK is all that matters then how do you have time to be here?

          1. crow says:

            One saves by not trying to.
            It’s about not getting in your own way, thus avoiding making the same mistakes that got us here.
            Remember: leftists are doing the same thing: trying save everybody. This replaces humility with grandiosity. No puny individual can achieve very much unless he understands this.
            I see your heart is in the right place, and we are actually allies. Maybe I have been around a bit longer than you? Not my fault, nor yours.
            Rome wasn’t built in a day :)

            1. thordaddy says:

              Crow,

              You must let go of preconceived notions especially because they are false.

              The self-annihilators are ascendent. This is why we find ourselves in collective descent.

              But these self-annihilating tendencies are really within all of us and that is why the belief in “equality” has become our societal first principle.

              You don’t seem to understand that when you imply that the genuine white Supremacist is a white degenerate then you are implying your belief in “equality” (Supremacy = degeneracy) and the embrace and exaltation of the white man’s self-annihilation.

              A white man prohibited from striving towards Supremacy would rather be dead.

              1. crow says:

                You don’t seem to understand that you are addressing the wrong person. I didn’t equate your obsession with degeneracy.
                Anyway, you are becoming exceedingly tiresome.
                I do not subscribe to this supremacy obsession and am not about to. Why not go find some other supremacists to be supreme with?

                1. thordaddy says:

                  Crow,

                  It’s funny, you know. I came here impressed by Mr. Stevens’ writings from elsewhere. What I found was an intellectual and spiritual defense of objective Supremacy. You have some how taken up the position that you will oppose my line of thought. I NEVER intended to address you in the first place and now somehow after entangling me in your half-hearted rebuttals, it is me that is entangling you! Lol.

                  Come on, Crow…

                  How can one be obsessed with the Absolute Truth?

                  Why are you even here other than to seek greater truth?

                  You’ve already let us know that any solution you have to offer to our collective dilemma is quite primitive and rather inexplicable.

                  1. crow says:

                    I once sought truth.
                    Now I dispense it.
                    It’s a natural enough process.
                    But I do try not to ram it down peoples’ throats, especially when they make it quite clear they are not interested. You might try that approach.

                    You find my offerings primitive?
                    I take that as a compliment.
                    Modernity has little to recommend it.
                    I enjoy all things neolithic.

  5. gg says:

    good article. convincing enough for someone like me who has spent a great deal of time contemplating but has never voted.

  6. Marcus Antony says:

    i can see the “scumbag steve” meme now…
    “claims political opponents are divorced from “reality””.
    “bases own political ideals on a fictional town from a tv show.”

    1. crow says:

      Possibly a tactical error, but who among humans is completely immune to those?

  7. thordaddy says:

    crow,

    You’re wrong. This place is teeming with Supremacists, i.e., anti-egalitarians.

    In particular, it is a place of white anti-egalitarians, i.e., white Supremacists.

    I don’t make this up. I HAVE TO FOLLOW these truths, also!

    What will it take to go from passive to aggressive other than an existential crisis?

    I mean, why do you call it “equality” when it is really anti-Supremacy?

    And why would you gladly call yourself an anti-egalitarian, but not a Supremacist?

    It is because you would really rather go with the flow.

    That’s all.

    1. crow says:

      There’s this easy-to-follow concept called ‘keeping ones head attached to one’s shoulders’. What did it avail Jean d’Arc to end up fried? Or Jesus to be staked-out in the sun? Or Hitler to be poisoned, shot and barbecued?
      There’s nothing manly or brave about suicide.
      It’s about living to fight another day.

      1. thordaddy says:

        Who is talking about committing suicide other than the radical liberationist?

        We’ve be slowly deracinated, androgynized and secularized to the point of spiritual, intellectual and biological self-annihilation.

        By God…

        Even YOU think Supremacy = degeneracy.

        And you are a conservative/traditionalist/reactionary/etc…

        I think radical autonomist better describes your state of being.

        1. crow says:

          I think you rely too much on absolute labels.
          I am what I am, and whatever I am you can never know it.
          Because you are not me.
          You are you.

          1. thordaddy says:

            Yes crow…

            So are you only interested in saving your own neck?

            Does that then make you a conservative/traditionalist/reactionary/etc?

            Again, what of this collective consternation to be found right here at this blog?

            Is there a collective solution?

            I grant that Mr. Stevens has his mind in tune with the problems at hand.

            Are his solutions individual ones or are they collectivist in nature?

            White Supremacy is both individual and potentially collectivist, albeit, a voluntary collective specifically antithetical to the radical liberationist’s tyrannical desire for all-inclusiveness.

            1. crow says:

              Interesting question…
              No. I don’t actually give a toss about saving anybody else’s neck. People are retarded shits, generally, as I am sure you will agree.
              However, there is no limit to the lengths to which I will go to save, or help, a complete stranger, in dire need, should I encounter such an animal. But this is purely a personal interaction, divorced completely from any larger issue.
              What I care about (admittedly less-and-less) is the saving of civilization, itself, as a glorious construction paid for by the energies and lives of countless millions, over hundreds of years. It deserves reverence for what it is. Or rather, what it was.
              I really don’t think people as individuals count for very much. If they can’t even do the necessary minimum to look after themselves, then they have no use or value.
              Yes I come first. Of course I do. In order to be around to defend and protect my wife, our animals and birds, our trees and our immediate environment.
              Other than that, if I died later today, I wouldn’t mind, or resist it one bit.

              1. thordaddy says:

                Ah… Crow?

                How do we untangle this supra-rational “sentiment?” It is positively primitive. But nonethless, it almost makes perfect sense.

                But it doesn’t explain your contributions here.

                You would not care to save a neck UNLESS that neck was being crushed right in front of you and then the neck need not be the neck of anyone in particular. Ok. How do you synthesize this?

                You have a learned distaste for the “retarded shits” of humanity, but this indicates nothing concerning notions of Supremacy? Ok. Define “retarded shits?” What really defines them outside their self-evidently inferior state?

                Wouldn’t somebody in an inferior state more likely seek “equality” and thus self-define as anti-Supremacists, i.e., one who embraces an inferior state of being?

                Does this not explain our decline? We desire it?

                1. crow says:

                  I’ve stated my position. You’ve stated yours.
                  It’s been engaging, to a point.
                  But now I must decline, for the moment, to continue this. I have a full-of-stuff life to deal with.

  8. Lisa Colorado says:

    Thor

    You can’t make something supreme just by calling it that. What are you doing about supremacy? One can judge a tree by its fruits.

    When I see ‘white supremacy’ in alphabet letters, I picture groups of people getting together, getting a lot of tattoos, naming their children Hitler, doing hand gestures and slogans, acting all tough, ending up in prison getting more tattoos.

    How is that supreme?

    Building a community of people who agree to do work that is needed to be done, and NOT ending up brainwashed or manipulated, or stamped with some silly tattoo, would be supreme.

    1. crow says:

      Ha :)
      Nice one.
      That about sums it up.

    2. thordaddy says:

      Lisa Colorado,

      Please don’t deceive yourself. Your conceptual understanding of the white Supremacist is not yours at this point. Yours IS ENTIRELY the creation of the radical liberationist. This conceptualization REQUIRES you to adhere to a thoroughly destructive false first principle. You, like others here, seem to be inexplicably unaware of this deleterious first principle.

      Supremacy does not equal degeneracy.

      Your adherence to this false first principle indicates that nothing you say can be trusted.

      It’s like saying hot = cold

      good = evil

      man = woman

      a = b…

      It’s the radical liberal formula.

      And you’re right. Just because a white degenerate calls himself a white supremacist does not mean he is supreme. He is more like a radical liberationist who just uses the learned fear and loathing of white Supremacy to his personal benefit.

      1. Lisa Colorado says:

        I saw the tattooed skin.

    3. ferret says:

      naming their children Hitler

      Not Hitler (Hitler kaput).
      Adolf.

  9. Mihai says:

    I would be very prudent with these hopes of change through voting whatever candidate.
    Even if they seem bright before the elections, “somehow”, immediately after they enter office, they forget the “values” that they upheld during campaigns and they do straight to satisfying the interests of all sorts of lobbies and ‘elites’.

  10. [...] explains in a roundabout way why it’s imperative that we vote for Romney in his essay “The right wing fragments its own vote again.” In it, he argues that the Right wing always fragments its vote while the Left wing always [...]

  11. Lex says:

    The left is fragmented as much as the right if not more. Even today’s communists are fragmented into pieces and they have factions like Leninists, Maoists, Third worldists who hate each other and they hate all hate liberals. The liberals split into factions as well, social democrats and leftwing greens are socalists splits who hate each other and all the other factions named here hate the social democrats and the leftwing greens.

    The anarchists are outsiders commonly seen with some of the “pro imperialistic factions” tend to ally sometimes with and the anarchists are fractured as well into anarcho-communism. The anarchist movement is dying because of a big split into national anarchism which is neo nazi anarchism, no laws but all non whites will be killed.

    Even the communists have a big problem with neo nazis in and facicism in there own ranks!, because of a neo nazi split that is mixed with communism which is big in Eastern Europe called National Bolshevism which is a odd mix of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union.

    The republican lemmings say this every time not to vote for a third party because they are scared to lose the status quo.

    Well to hell with the GOP, clean the white house.

Leave a Reply

39 queries. 0.826 seconds