Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘DR3’

DR3

Thursday, June 8th, 2017

Conservatives are those who wanted the old order (“1788”) but accepted that they had to work with the victorious Left, and so have bent their beliefs to fit within an egalitarian spectrum.

From this idiocy comes conservative praise of liberty, justice, peace, freedom, equality, and diversity, all of which are symbols or proxies for doing actual good, which is the main concern of conservatism.

Even more, all of these require us to accept the status quo as permanent and therefore to consider it good, even though as is evident it is not just mediocre but outright evil.

The mental hobbling that ensues turns conservatives into the defenders of values that are the precursors to Leftist issues, effectively making the Right into agents of the Left.

Perhaps the worst and most common form of this is “Dems R the Real Racists,” or DR3, in which conservatives use the Leftist idea of equality to argue for conservative ideas, but instead merely strengthen Leftist ones.

Egalitarianism is the singular idea of the Left. If you are egalitarian, you are at least partially Leftist; most conservatives are in fact hybrid Leftists, which is why conservatism usually fails. Diversity is merely racial egalitarianism, and “anti-racism” is a political movement to suppress criticism of or resistance to diversity.

For this reason, any conservative expressing DR3 has not only been subverted, but has joined the other side. Conservatives recognize realism plus qualitative concerns; nothing in that requires enforcing equality or diversity. Further, we are not ideologues but realists, and so we have no need to enforce symbolic obedience to a singular political agenda. Conservatives consider racism part of freedom.

DR3 can be easily spotted by the trope of confusion over the party polarity shift in the 1960s and the Leftist mental chewing gum that is their incessant bloviation about the “Southern Strategy”:

Whenever a Democrat accuses a Republican of being racist, the talk show host will immediately go on a pre-programmed rant about how the Democrats supported slavery, the Democrats founded the Klan, Robert Byrd was a Klansman, Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act blah blah.

…Whenever Republicans try the “Democrats are racist” line, liberals retort that the Republicans simply absorbed the racist segregationist Southern Democrats as well as their agenda.

We can spot DR3 in its current form wherever conservatives accuse the Left of racism or reverse racism, inadvertently strengthening the Leftist argument against nationalism:

Many on the Dissident Right mock cuckservatives for engaging in “DR3” or DemsRRealRacists i.e. incapable of defending their values on their merits, they concede the Left’s moral premises, but accuse them of being the “real racists”, homophobes, sexists etc.

The Right will never win this debate unless we reframe it as follows:

  1. Anti-racism is censorship. As long as we are in a democracy that makes the pretense of having free speech and free thought, we need to stop witch-hunts against people for having the wrong opinion. We may smash those who are actively traitors to an enemy, but adopting racism is no more allegiance to Hitler than advocating socialism makes one an agent of the Soviet Union (although many turned out to be that anyway).
  2. We are nationalists. Racists concern themselves with whether specific other races are up to snuff; nationalists point out that diversity never works, and therefore it does not matter if the specific racial groups are good or bad because for our purposes, any racial, ethnic and cultural group but our own is bad.
  3. Theory is not always reality. The ideas of equality and diversity are assumptions, not theories proven to work over the long-term in the real world. No one should be forced to adopt an assumption as real without some indication of a corresponding tendency of reality to reward the implementation of that assumption.

Any time we turn tail and run, or worse accept Leftist precepts as our conclusions, we have self-defeated. This gives the Left a double victory: they are the party left standing, and we self-destruct, appearing incompetent (and rightfully so) to all who are watching.

Conservatism Does Not Include “Freedom” And “Equality”

Friday, April 7th, 2017

Over at the National Review, a conservative publication that escaped favor when it fired John Derbyshire for being insufficiently politically correct, another stunner of a clickbait confusion about what conservatism is:

Colonial Baptists’ fight for religious freedom applies equally to Muslims in America today.

…Isaac Backus and John Leland, another Baptist hero for religious liberty, spoke out for the freedom of the soul in behalf of Jews, Muslims, and atheists alike. The principle was that religious freedom is not a spoil of politics, to be divvied out to — and defined by — the highest bidder.

To control religion is to attempt to hamper the effectual call by God on the souls of men. Men must be allowed to seek reconciliation with the divine. And civil government, acting in just accordance with its ordained function, must protect this process. In this way, government, like the church, is concerned with the souls of its populace.

They are confusing means with ends, which causes them to interpret those means as ends, and in doing so, apply them more broadly than the context in which they are means to the ends that conservatism prescribes.

Any idealistic slant to the article vanishes with the familiar Leftist argument:

What’s more, their position is short-sighted. Given the present shift in American demographics, it might not be too long before the Baptists are once again a powerless minority. And this time, it might be Muslims before whom they are pleading for “soul freedom.”

All Leftism consists of a begging-the-question fallacy in order to engage in circular reasoning of the form “if we assume we are all equal, bad consequences will come from not enforcing equality.”

Here, the argument advanced is that demographic change is a certainty and therefore, people should accept it as otherwise it will turn out badly for them. This is designed then to advance the argument that methods like “freedom,” “equality” and rule of law will continue to exist in that new society, ignoring the fact that the new denizens will be drawn from those who have no use for such things.

That in turn leads to arguments that are variations of DR3, or “democrats are the real racists,” a debate by which the Right tries to seize the ideological high ground based on Leftist ideals. Naturally, this fails for them every time.

However, it does not fail for individual conservatives, who are making their living by preaching a philosophy of impotence to their followers. They want their followers enraged but not engaged in anything more than the symbolic issues on which profiteers of the Right wing make their fortunes: abortion, equal treatment, the Constitution, strong defense, and banging the tin drum of Christian lifestyles.

In reality, conservatism is simple: conserve the best of human experience. This means that conservatism is an end, and not a means, based on both an uncompromising realism and a direction toward excellence and qualitative improvement. This is principle, not method, and contrasts Leftism which is method pretending to be an end in itself.

This means that conservatism is larger than the subset that American conservatives have tried to carve out for themselves based on American history, which began with a hybrid of Leftism and has drifted Leftward ever since. We are now at a crux of history where liberal democracy has failed, and with it have failed the methods intended to limit it that also failed.

Conservatives need to abandon DR3 and its cousins. There is only one Right-wing philosophy and it is Radical Realism plus a tendency toward qualitative improvement toward excellence. Anything else is a weapon of the enemy and when conservatives defend it, they make their motivations suspect.

You Cannot Beat The Left By Using Leftist Language

Saturday, February 4th, 2017

Among those on the Right, a disturbing tendency appears time and again where we attempt to use the arguments of our enemies against them, but go too far and use their language.

To defeat a party by using its own arguments, you must show that your way works better in terms of achieving goals, and also possibly that their way does not achieve its goals. If the mayor says he wants to decrease litter, and he wants to do it by putting more trash cans in the town square, pointing out that most of the littering does not occur there is a winning argument.

But Leftist language is not about goals; it is entirely categorical. You are either ideologically correct or the enemy. This is why it tends to operate in binary forms that designate a category of bad things, and an “anti” category for those that oppose them. People signal obedience by belonging to the latter.

For this reason, to use Leftist language is to affirm one side or the other when the actuality of the situation is more complex. Are you an ableist — a Leftist term meaning those who favor physically fit people — or not? Does the world ever fit into such narrow categories? Most people do not take ideological positions, but realistic ones, and the Left forces them into a categorical choice to control them.

If you are not an ableist, after all, you agree with the Leftist position against ableism. On the other hand, if you say you are an ableist or try to evade the question, you will be filed in a neat little box of ideas that the Leftists want you to think are socially unacceptable. It is their way of either forcing you to conform or beginning the process of destroying you.

Those who are not Leftist can defeat Leftists by rejecting their terms. This is why it is self-defeating (the worst kind of defeat) to use terms and metaphors like the following:

  • Nazi.
  • Racist.
  • Fascist.
  • Elitist.

You may recognize the second item as the failed DR3/DemsRtheRealRacists ploy which generally serves more as an indicator of cuckservative intent than a refutation of Leftism.

Many on the Dissident Right mock cuckservatives for engaging in “DR3” or DemsRRealRacists i.e. incapable of defending their values on their merits, they concede the Left’s moral premises, but accuse them of being the “real racists”, homophobes, sexists etc.

If you need to call the Left nasty names, try these instead:

Unlike Leftist language, these are descriptive terms based on the behavior of Leftists. They also explain Leftism as a pathology and not an ideology, which is its weakness and why Leftists tend to be so fanatical. It is time to retake language from politics, and stop using it to affirm the Leftist narrative in a misguided attempt to attack Leftism. That never works.

Recommended Reading