Whipped Dogs

Conservatives are stuck in the dog house, not the tree house.

Readership: All
Length: 900 words
Reading Time: 3 minutes

It has been awhile since I have written anything of note, and that is due to two factors: I am too busy IRL, and every time I start drafting an article, it becomes old news by the end of the week. The controversial news and topics come at us like water from a fire hose. We aren’t able to take it all in and confront each issue. That is by design.

Conservatives Construct their Arguments within the Liberal Frame

While this site is dedicated to “frame” in the context of sexual relationships, one’s “frame” has consequences elsewhere in life. One consequence of your frame is how you view political issues. Are you a subject, or a citizen? Are you independent, or codependent?

The modern conservative is codependent, views themselves as loyal subjects who pay taxes and obey the laws. They worship the corporate monopoly, which provides for them. They worship police, as they can’t defend themselves. They only talk about issues liberals bring up first, as they have nothing to offer themselves. They never say anything too controversial, because they want to participate in the conversation during tea time.

In other words, the modern conservative is a woman. As we know, women exist within, and rely upon, the frame of a man (or are supposed to, as God and nature demand). When we apply this analogy to American politics, the “man” holding frame is none other than the woke progressive left. Ironic because they are all androgynous.

Once you realize this about conservatives, everything makes sense. They talk and talk and talk about issues nonstop, never coming to any resolution, and never taking any action. The top YouTube commentators, podcasts, talk radio, and cable news shows are right wing for this very reason. They also never come to a conclusion about abortion. In fact, their attempts to “end” it have been nothing but a joke — one that gives them an opportunity to raise a ton of money to waste. Yet another similarity.

The two times in history when republicans controlled the presidency and at least one house resulted in zero accomplishments for this very reason. Feewings were consulted and consensus didn’t happen.

For every divisive issue we are presented with, there are a litany of bullshit artists trying to grift. Then there are more honest actors out there, who refuse to think creatively out of fear. I can’t tell the difference anymore.

Composition 5, with elaborate frame by Pedro Gonzalez.

Today I want to discuss the neoconservative impulse among those on the right wing. To be specific: I am talking about “right wing” commentators who are anti-neocon when it comes to the Middle East, even though they are the new cold warrior neocons who want a war with China, and can’t let go of the idea that ‘Murica should be an empire.

I am talking about people such as Pedro Gonzalez, Ryan Girdusky, Darren Beattie, Scott Greer, Colombian Bugle, Mike Cernovich, et al. You may have never heard of these people, but they are influential on social media platforms, as well as many of the new right’s websites/forums: the same ones that are informing the right wing voter base. They are the new talk radio.

All of these people mock the globalist American empire, neocons, the left, woke culture, and recognize that every single American institution has been coopted by the insane. Yet they desire to remain in that environment, and believe they can “take it back”. Several of the people mentioned above actually want the country to be taken over by the Catholic Church (an indication that they are closeted leftists jealous of power they don’t hold, possibly closeted on other issues as well, and are out of touch with reality by the span of a solar system).

There have been people on the far right and far left calling for some form of secession or peaceful separation of the states for many years. It’s a common sense solution to many problems, as there are, in fact, two America’s with differing social values and priorities. Recently, moderates and even left wing pundits have started discussing a “national divorce.” That should be an indication of the general public’s desire, but because people on the left want it, now the right wing pundits have to oppose it. Consensus on any real working solution is anathema to the distractions away from the real issues. So now we know what’s really important to them.

The marriage between liberals and conservatives in American politics is a toxic relationship, and the problem is the Republican establishment and conservatives who want to scream “no” to everything, even if they were asking for it 5 minutes ago. When you think about it, the right acts like women. Liberals are the husband and conservatives are the wife, and the wife has to be contentious and disagreeable about everything.

The left knows what they want, and they act with deliberate and thoughtful purpose to achieve it — just like a man. They are patient and take an incremental approach until they are in a position to gain a lot of ground at once — just like a man. I don’t know what the Republican party and conservative movement wants, but it’s probably saying “no” and throwing a tantrum over every issue no one cares about — just like a woman.

Who stands against this idea? The people I listed above. They acknowledge that the conservative movement was a failure, that we are on a leftward trend, etc., but they refuse to break away from the failed thinking of past conservatives. They can’t divorce because they have nothing of their own contribution to stand upon. They can’t stop behaving like a woman and create their own frame.

Related

This entry was posted in Collective Strength, Conflict Management, Culture Wars, Fundamental Frame, Holding Frame, Media, Models of Failure, News Critique, Politics, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Whipped Dogs

  1. info says:

    “It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This 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 bath 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. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.”

    ~ R. L. Dabney. “Women’s Rights Women” (1897)

    In 1897 it was recognized that “Conservatism” would give way before “Women’s Rights” and “Women’s Suffrage”, and that everything to do with the Leftward drift of society was seen to be part of the Egalitarian Gnostic Heresy.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. info says:

    “The left knows what they want, and they act with deliberate and thoughtful purpose to achieve it — just like a man. They are patient and take an incremental approach until they are in a position to gain a lot of ground at once — just like a man. I don’t know what the Republican party and conservative movement wants, but it’s probably saying “no” and throwing a tantrum over every issue no one cares about — just like a woman.”

    For all the celebration of Traditional Masculinity in Men and Femininity in Women, their actions prove that they love the Gender/Sex Inversion.

    Also seems to comport with their love of “Strong, Gun toting badass women”.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Red Pill Apostle says:

    What makes Lexet’s assessment of conservatives so, so correct is that there is a document, the Constitution, that gives the supposed proponents of limited government a distinct target to work towards. Yet for conservatives talking is the goal and even the thought of basic action against the current state of affairs scares the skirts off them.

    They should take some very simple steps. They won’t do this, but they should start with a goal, such as somethings completely insane like limiting federal power by moving all those powers reserved for states, back to the states. Then figure out those steps that shift the Overton Window in that direction and start doing. I have heard that the secret to politics is acknowledging that you are always going to split the sandwich and that you win by being the one who chooses the sandwich being split.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Unfortunately the right wing tone polices (again, feminine behavior). National Review is the biggest offender. The guys I mentioned in the article are now tone policing on the issue of divorce.

      Like

      • info says:

        The National Review is full of Male Soyfaces with effeminate personalities in the first place. No wonder.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        Conservatives seem to also want to be “Respectable” but being so would require them to adhere to their opponents definition of “Respectability”.

        By definition Christianity is lower than dirt on the Totem Pole in regards to Satan’s world.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Info – This is why Conservatisms main media voices are so vile. There is no fight in them for things that they say matter to them. When given the opportunity to score a win for their supposed side they mumble about being better than that and being respectable (hello Mitt!).

        “The Way of Men” by Jack Donovan explains what is so effeminate about these media conservatives. He breaks down masculine qualities into base elements and a big part of this is knowing that in a moment when it really counts that the guys in your group, your ‘us’ won’t turn and run leaving you to fight shorthanded or alone against ‘them’ who are trying to do harm to you. In politics, we have some distinct left and right views so it’s easy to delineate the ‘us’ vs the ‘them’ on topics of importance. The conservatives abandon people who are their ‘us’ and they do it to curry favor with people who are the ‘them’ politically. It’s weak, fearful and treacherous to people they claim to be like politically. Basically, they are less than worthless, which is why they need to shamed and shunned.

        Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      @Red Pill Apostle

      “Basically, they are less than worthless, which is why they need to shamed and shunned.”

      The fact that any Father would give their daughters in marriage to such men is such a travesty. No way they should be rewarded at all.

      Like

  4. feeriker says:

    “…there is a document, the Constitution, that gives the supposed proponents of limited government a distinct target to work towards. Yet for conservatives talking is the goal and even the thought of basic action against the current state of affairs scares the skirts off them.”

    “Conservatives” don’t believe in or respect the Constitution any more than liberals. To them it’s just a prop for fueling their obstructionist contentiousness. The Constitution is like an American child: it has no intrinsic value to pundits and politicians (the rhetorical equivalent of American parents) other than as a battle weapon or a status symbol. It certainly isn’t valued for what it actually is, given the blatant neglect and abuse it suffers.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      The constitution lost all meaning when the Supreme Court ruled away the privileges and immunities clause pre civil war. That led to the final version of the 14th amendment, and the court using that as a basis to “incorporate” rights to individuals.

      To think that the bill of rights meant nothing until post 1865 is insane.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        “The constitution lost all meaning when the Supreme Court ruled away the privileges and immunities clause pre civil war.”

        That, and the Civil War becoming precedent that states may not secede once they’ve joined the Union. It’s turned the US into a huge Hotel California — “You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.” If the US were a married couple, both sides would have done time for domestic violence and in court on counterpetitions for divorce for cause. The two sides stay together “for the kids” (corporations, moneyed interests) and “cheaper to keep her” (the creditors in Beijing need paid).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        There is a decent book called “9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America: And Four Who Tried to Save Her” by Brion McClanahan. The author evaluates presidencies based on adherence to the constitution and based on this, Lincoln is one of the 9 who screwed up the US. He transformed our republic into a federal aristocracy with states serving the role of serfs.

        He may not have liked that the South had slavery still and that the southern states were willing to abandon the Union over the issue, but he apparently went with the logic that he’d have to violate the principles of the republic in order to save the republic. He may not have been acting on principle but he certainly understood force. 140 something years later, or should I say 7 score, one of our nation’s most intelligent and deeply contemplative presidents, George W. Bush told us, “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system …” in December of 2008 after he used the heavy handed force of government to get private entities to cover his backside after years of allowing bad policy.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        It’s a complete misunderstanding that the Civil War was fought “to end slavery.” The war was not some sort of noble conflict with the North as white hat-clad savior and the South as evildoer in need of redemption. It was not about ending slavery or rectifying injustices against oppressed blacks. The Civil War was not part of a moral quest for the betterment of mankind or the improvement of the U.S. It was about the conflict between states’ rights and the nature and extent of federal power — and the federal government “won”. Above all, it was about money and power — what ALL politics is about, and war is just an instrument of politics.

        Lincoln was about saving the Union at all cost. He was about keeping the South in the Union, and if slavery or some form of it had to be preserved to do that, he would have worked to find a way to do that. Lincoln had no great love of blacks either. He advocated for repatriation of black slaves to Africa — that was his solution to the slavery problem (but that didn’t work, because, of course, the Southern states raised the very valid question: “Who’s gonna pay for it?”). As it was, the northern Republicans — Lincoln’s party, the party that got him elected, the party that had the power — wanted slavery abolished, not because that was “the right thing to do”, but because abolishing slavery would consolidate their power and their access to money and resources.

        Lincoln was an extremely shrewd politician. He was a political animal. He knew what the game was, he knew how to play the game, and he knew how to make the game work for him. So he went with his party, and fought the war to preserve the union. Freeing the slaves was incidental to that. The lasting effect was strengthening the federal government at the expense of the states — the EXACT thing the Founding Fathers did NOT want and warned against.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        The draft is not only slavery, but a death sentence.

        Lincoln imposed it.

        At the end of the war, we had greenbacks, a draft, war debts, taxes, and everyone became the government’s n(expletive).

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Think about this though.

        One reason preserving the Union and keeping the Southern states “in the fold” was because the Founding Fathers, and Lincoln and his contemporaries, understood European history. They understood the history of war and conflict among the geographically smaller nations in central and western Europe. The North and South would be stronger together as a preserved United States. A United States in the north and a Confederate States in the South would be weaker and more prone to military and economic attack, The War of 1812 hadn’t been that long ago, and they knew what might happen if a world power like Britain or France decided to retake the Not So New World.

        The land in north America was rich, and there was a lot, a LOT, of money to be made for those who held it and worked it. We had it. The European powers wanted it. They couldn’t hold it because it was too big and too far away. The Americans were too independent to be governed, they played by their own rules, and there were too many of them. The Americans together had TWICE repelled Great Britain, the greatest world power. (The English were just the biggest and best at colonization. The Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Belgians were doing this — but the English were better at it than everyone else. The English didn’t have the most land, but they had the best land, and they were making the most money at it.)

        A united North and South could preserve their independence. A North America divided into a USA in the north and a CSA in the south could have devastated them both — militarily, economically, and culturally. Culturally is important here too — the U.S. of 1860 was culturally homogeneous. North and South were tightly bound with common language, heritage, and culture. The Christianity of John Wesley and John Calvin ruled the day. Yes, there were other faiths, but Protestantism benevolently ruled the day. English was the language of interaction, commerce, and worship.

        The North was stronger industrially and had better transportation and infrastructure. The South was stronger in their pride, their resolve, and their cultural identity. No one makes money and works like a northerner; but no one holds honor, integrity, and resolve like a southerner. Trust me — you make a friend in a southerner, you have a friend for life. A southerner will have your back no f’ing matter what. A southerner will do anything for you, and I do mean anything. Southerners are men of virtue, character and integrity. There is no gentler friend and no fiercer warrior than a southern man (Yes, SFC Ton, I’m looking at you.) They’re friends, but when it’s time to throw down, they can throw down. Unfortunately, the genteel Southern man is the epitome of all that is Blue Pill, so those men have had to unlearn much of what distinguished them. But be that as it may, the North of 1865 recognized they needed the South, and that’s part of why they fought to preserve the union.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Your estimation of southern behaviors is … decades in the past, with the exception of their incredibly naïve blue pilled nature.

        My experience is the opposite of yours. The dividing line in behavior began with Gen X.

        Their “charm” and friendliness is mostly an act. Southern hospitality doesn’t exist anymore. They tend to have no integrity, they are incredibly lazy workers and employees, they hate people with money (and will happily screw them over), and genuinely hate anyone not from their state or region. Their loyalty is to a college football team and nothing else. Their churches are all run by charlatans trying to enrich themselves by controlling their local community.

        Go to any rural area in the south, and you are going to see people covered tattoos, and reveling in degeneracy. The Bible Belt is a myth and a cope.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “Your estimation of southern behaviors is … decades in the past, with the exception of their incredibly naïve blue pilled nature.”

        Stop this planet — I want to get off!

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        The South is full of sinful people now, like it always has been. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the South had different factions depending on where in the South you went. The “Gone With the Wind” South that Deti described is mainly a romanticized view of wealthy southerners of upper class British lineage. Much of the South more closely resembled Scottish clans in their easily offended, quick to fight, and lascivious behavior.

        It was very much an insider and outsider worldview in the small towns that populated the land. A few years ago I met with a man whose father had been one of Georgia’s first state police officers. He patrolled north GA and his recollection of many of the small towns was that people would be polite if you were passing through and stopped for food or fuel, but it was made abundantly clear that you were not to stay beyond that. This was in the second half of the 20th century.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        The aristocracy is very much alive. They are incredibly degenerate, as the men (and now women) are promiscuous. And yes, more so than Californians.

        Liked by 1 person

      • zeonicfreak says:

        “The aristocracy is very much alive. They are incredibly degenerate, as the men (and now women) are promiscuous. And yes, more so than Californians.”

        This is very true in the small town I’ve been in, down in SC for 13 years now. Everyone bangs one another and they all show up to church on Sunday, sing in choirs, and are even youth pastors. Depending on the church they go to, they either get away with it while it’s an open secret in the church and the pastor does nothing, or they will get dismissed from their position. The former is wildly more known than the latter sadly. It seems the more “faith filled”, the more sin is in that congregation.

        I know of guys who sleep around with other women and get them knocked up, and then are in a basically open polygamous unmarried relationship with them, and those women’s/girl’s families are involved in their local bapticostal church. For the girls that get knocked up, their mom’s promote their upcoming kid as a godsend, but they never openly bring up the fact their daughter was sleeping around and they see no issue with it because they’ll get a kid out of the deal from the dopey, no good, ole “southern boy” they’re stuck with. So Lexet does bring up very good points on his assessment of southerners.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Thanks for sharing.

        It’s sad to hear these stories. I know plenty of people who grew up in those communities, were traumatized by their experiences. What’s even more horrifying is some of the things I have read in case dockets.

        Like

    • Lastmod says:

      Once…….Eight? Seven years ago…….during Sunday morning coffee before the Holiness meeting…there was a something of a scandal. One of the women who was living in the transitional home was a few weeks pregnant.

      (Transitional home: women getting off drugs, the Salvation Army advocating to get their children back to them, and the Salvation Army giving them a nice furnished apartment for the mom to reconnect with the child in a supposedly supervised environment, rules, no men allowed……)

      All the old Salvation Army ladies / church moms “how did she get pregnant, there are no men allowed there, and they have rules to follow!”

      I sipping my coffee all fresh and dapper in my Uniform just said “Pretty simple, she snuck the boyfriend in, the other women in the home were not going to snitch on her. Pretty textbook.”

      The shock! The gasps! The how-dare-you say such a thing looks at me “Those women in that home-have-jesus-in-their-heart, and know the rules”

      “So” I said sipping my coffee “Is this a baby a miracle?” A Jesus baby?”

      The barrage then came on like Joshua, the walls came tumbling down and it was me versus about fifteen women swqaking and all talking at me, sternly. Hands on hips, waving fingers at me:

      “Well maybe it is! Maybe it is a miracle! / that baby could lead the revival! / so, we should just throw her out on the street because she made a bad choice! / You’re a drug addict and alcoholic so you can’t judge! / That is why you’re single you can’t pull the plank out of your own eye / So you have never made a bad choice? / She stated a few weeks back her boyfriend was going to marry her so what difference does it make…”

      I learned after that to never open my mouth, and NONE of the mighty-men-of-god here joined in to defend me, or break it up. Why???? Terrified. That’s why.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Random Angeleno says:

    Conservatives couldn’t conserve the girls’ bathrooms. That’s the movement in a nutshell. So out there in California, they’re not conserving the women’s prison. Or the women’s spas. Around the country there are states that allow underage teens to start gender transitions without the parents’ permission. Transitions that have no return path. Mealy mouth conservatives couldn’t mount serious opposition to that. Check out the suppressed stories of those who went there and are regretting it now. While their enablers get away with it.

    So I’m not a conservative anymore. Those RINO’s are far worse than the progressives as they suck our opposition to the progressives into their own black holes. Need to stop paying attention to them, stop bankrolling them and stop voting for them. Controlled opposition indeed.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. thedeti says:

    Hmmm.

    I guess we’re done talking about the evil that women do. No more talk about sluts, or bad wives, or promiscuous women, or mean women mistreating their husbands.

    Oh well. The girlz didn’t want to talk about it, so I guess that means the Problem Has Been Solved.

    /s

    Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Women don’t want men talking about that. Oddly enough, no right wing pundits raise the issue. Whipped dogs!

      Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Deti – If you dissect what conservatives have become, their takes on almost every issue is effeminate. We can learn quite a bit from watching what they do and how they act. By adopting the default position that we should do the opposite of everything they do, we can actually have pretty good lives and marriages.

      Let’s run through some of the things you have written to me off thread. These are a few off the top of my head. Set and adhere to clear boundaries that you are willing to enforce. Stop acting worrying about others will react to what you do. Only apologize when it is necessary and only then sparingly. This is about setting the goal and leading towards it, whether she follows your lead or not.

      These were written to me specifically about Mrs. Apostle, but if you put them into a list of rules for conservative politicians to follow they’d wring their hands, wet their pants, and then give 100 excuses why they couldn’t possibly do any of those things. I will attest that putting these into practice in my own marriage has been a great success so far because people respond to masculinity, and this is especially true of women.

      I’m still working on being better, but even as I’m learning the change is quite noticeable. There are fewer fitness tests. Our relational and physical intimacy is good and improving. We laugh and enjoy each other’s company. Applying the concepts in the statements you wrote to me were vital to making the relationship better.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “If you dissect what conservatives have become, their takes on almost every issue is effeminate. We can learn quite a bit from watching what they do and how they act. By adopting the default position that we should do the opposite of everything they do, we can actually have pretty good lives and marriages.”

        LMAO! Of course, this would not be establishing your own frame, but it would probably make a good social experiment, and I imagine it would reveal a few faux pas areas we have missed.

        Like

  7. Lastmod says:

    And in the mid 1990’s who did we get to look at as the face of the ‘conservative’ movement? Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh. Two check-pants republican golfer types.

    A golden opportunity was had in 1994 when the Republicans surprised EVERYONE at the polls, and swept the whole country under their banner.

    What did they do right away?????? They assumed Americans suddenly became “moral Christians” and they couldn’t even stand up to a then weak Bill Clinton in the polls… with a large majority in both houses, and control of MOST statehouses………. just like with President Obama, a supermajority in both houses, control of a good portion of the nations statehouses and the excuse of, “Well, we need the presidency to get anything done.”

    In 1995, the “Contract with America” was 99% talk and just about zero action. Oh sure, maybe some of the PC nonsense might have slowed down…. but spending still went up. Budgets were NOT cut. The nation’s debt did NOT decrease.

    When Newt and Bill Clinton were shaking hands over that budget deal in 1996… I realized the republican part had left ME. That was when really BOTH parties became global-elites and just played wedge issues to keep the American public split and fighting over dumb things.

    And Trump was no better mind you. A wall wasn’t built……. I don’t care what they say…. Most of what was built was already there and just added to. Apple is not building their phones in the USA, and the swamp wasn’t drained. In fact it got deeper. Spending wasn’t cut. More “spending bills”. (Yeah, so much for the constitution thing the republicans claim to love so much.) Trade deals with weapons to nations that are not our friends. Obama went to Saudi Arabia… The republicans threw a baby crying fit of “He’s not American! look at him pandering to them!”

    And then when Trump does it, “Oh, its all part of his master, double secret plan…..” and “Oh, he made fun of that senator! He’s so cool. He’s a real man!”

    The country deserves exactly what it gets in the future. I used to get mad at Aaron Clarey about his “enjoy the decline”, but since 2017 or thereabouts….. I get it. I am no longer going to vote. The last real conservative was Barry Goldwater. That was almost 60 years ago.

    Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      “I am no longer going to vote.”

      I can’t believe that anybody with a brain or an ounce of self-respect would vote after the travesty/farce of November 2020 — January 2021. Only an idiot now believes that elections matter anymore.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        They still do at the local level. 99% of small government conservatives are uninvolved in local government or elections. Those are the races that do come down to one vote.

        Also, the biggest F U you can give is casting a blank ballot, which will be cast as an undervote. Its actually one of the few proactive steps people can take. No one cares about voters who don’t show up, but if large %’s of people cast blank ballots, people will start freaking out.

        Like

      • zeonicfreak says:

        Yea after that debacle you saw everyone’s true colors. My own state senators in South Carolina that I thought I liked and respected (I got to meet Tim Scott once at my college and talked to him for a bit, very nice guy in person) could’ve done the right thing and dragged this out. Then you realize who is controlling them. I think a blank ballot might be the best option in the next election, because I don’t have it in my heart to vote for my state’s Senators for another term after what they did.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        They fear losing friends in DC and NY who will employ them after they retire.

        And then there are those who are gaming to run for president, like Cruz, Paul, and Cotton.

        Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      The Bill Clinton impeachment was a farce.

      It was not over the sex scandal. Most of the republicans involved in the impeachment were involved in sex scandals of their own, including the senate page scandal. That was revealed under W. Bush, and is why Rs lost the midterms in 06.

      It also created the toxic political culture we have now.

      Rs were trying to pander to a small group — the evangelical hucksters. I can’t remember if I wrote about it on my blog yet, but Steve Deace wrote a book about how evangelicals and the republicans worked together to gain power, get rich, and accomplish nothing.

      Like

    • anonymous_ng says:

      Jason, your commentary on the face of conservatism made me think of the short lived focus some conservative men had on Putin circa 2010. I remember thinking at the time that it was a knee jerk reaction to what appeared to me to be the overly effeminate politicians that were most exemplified by the mom jean wearing president.

      I can’t explain why modern politicians all seem like limp wristed soy-boys in comparison to the same career politicians in the ’70s and ’80s, but to my eye, they mostly do.

      Clinton and George W both gave off a bit more of a manly vibe than did the mom jean wearing Barrack, but George HW despite his accomplishments in his youth seemed to me to the one of the soy-boy crowd. I’ve been thinking on this for some time. It’s not like politicians were from the working class really at any point in the modern day. It’s always taken a lot of money and usually a career in politics to achieve high office, but for some reason modern politicians seem more effeminate than previously.

      The only thing I’ve really been able to come up with is that as the traditional masculine virtues have faded to be replaced with an illusion of masculinity, the space between the reality and the illusion has grown to the point that real men are seen as soy-boys because they are so far from the illusion.

      IDK. Maybe also it’s just my impression of things.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “…for some reason modern politicians seem more effeminate than previously.”

        Yes, they’re always trying to soften their point in a way that would make it more PC acceptable to liberal audiences, but in doing so, the strength of their position is lost, and they come off appearing like a weasel. Trump was one of the least susceptible to this habit, and it earned him several derogatory labels. Most male politicians are too afraid to go there, assuming they have it within themselves.

        Also, we have a lot more women in politics now than ever before. There are lots of women in various offices, and several countries have women as presidents, including Germany and Taiwan. They’re working overtime to convert politics into an arena where men are essentially powerless and can do nothing of value.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      “I get it. I am no longer going to vote.”

      Well, you insist on living in Commiefornia, so your vote hasn’t mattered in decades anyway.

      Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        For holdouts on the coast, convince your friends to vote for the most moderate democrats.

        When you are a minority you have to hijack the majority, not fight against it.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “…convince your friends to vote for the most moderate democrats…”

        That endangered specie exists only in a few disconnected enclaves, and not on the coasts.

        Like

  8. Lastmod says:

    OT here:

    Men, I have not had a cigarette for over two weeks now. I finally did the math. I was spending over $3,000.00 a year (pack a day roughly at 10 and change here in California…. Marlboro reds), seven days a week, four weeks a months, twelve months a year…..

    Nope. Done. I have better things to spend my money on. I like smoking and I didn’t quit “because women like men who don’t smoke” nor health reasons….. The government ruined it. In California $8.46 of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is state taxes.

    I’ll beat it, but may need some encouragement here and there.

    Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      That’s great news, Jason!

      I quit smoking 35 years ago and was never really a habitual smoker, so I didn’t really have an withdrawal issues. Some of my family and friends who did, however, say that Nicorette is a very effective “weaning” tool, so there’s that if you find the cravings coming on.

      Hang in there. “Starving the beast” is a good reason in itself to quit.

      Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Check out fum. They make a wooden device that simulates the cigarette, and you can put herbs in it.

      Like

    • Jack says:

      “In California $8.46 of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is state taxes.”

      I imagine if every republican in California stopped smoking, that would put the state a little closer to bankruptcy. That’s real action. At $8.46 a pack, that might even be worth a monthly bootleg (or “armsleeve”) run to Nevada or Arizona — just to hit ’em where it hurts.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Jason:

      I quit smoking 17 years ago. Here’s your encouragement:

      You are over the toughest part. Your physiological addiction/dependence on nicotine has been completely broken. All the nicotine was out of your body 72 hours after you smoked your last cigarette. At 2 weeks, your body’s dependence on nicotine is no more. You’re not having cravings anymore. Time distortion should be over with by now.

      You’ll start feeling better. But weird things can happen. You’ll cough a lot while your body expels the gunk in your lungs. You’ll have dreams about smoking and they’ll be so vivid you’ll think you really did smoke. You’ll have a thought about smoking now and then, but they’re not physical cravings – they’re just mental thoughts. Pretty much anything and everything physical that happens to you in the next 2-4 months can be attributed to quitting smoking.

      Be careful about eating too much. When you quit smoking, everything tastes better. I put on about 20 pounds after quitting and it took time to lose. I wouldn’t worry about that too much – it’s easier for men to lose weight than it is to quit smoking.

      Don’t think you can go back to smoking and stop again anytime you want. You can’t. You smoke another cigarette, you’ll be right back to where you were and then you’ll have to go through quitting all over again.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      So, the “sin tax” worked.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Jack says:

    [Jack: Zeonicfreak left the following comment under the previous post, but it was obviously intended for this discussion.]

    When I read this article my instant thought was, “Well, this is a two edge sword, both parties are guilty of blowing hot air. It’s not just conservatives.” Then I started to think it over, my emotions on being offensive died down, and it began to make sense.

    Yes, the left are taking the ball and running as fast as they can with this country, and the conservatives expect someone just as fast to come up behind and tackle them before they reach their goal. The conservative voices blowing hot air are just warning us where the left are running us to. It’s more about raising awareness of what the right already knows what’s going to happen, and yet it makes us feel we/they are doing everything they can to keep up and to try and sway that by whatever means.

    It’s down to the right in what actions they need to take to make things right. If the left can burn down cities in the name of “peaceful” protests, then it’s clear that the end result is what matters to them — getting what they want, despite the backlash. If the right were to revolt in the same way the left does, then the right would be labelled “national terrorists.” But despite the labels, this would be the same as what we see the left doing, except that it would make a clear statement on getting the country to steer back from where it’s headed. I don’t advocate for violent acts but it seems violence always moves the agenda forward.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      @ Zeonicfreak

      “If the left can burn down cities in the name of “peaceful” protests, then it’s clear that the end result is what matters to them — getting what they want, despite the backlash.”

      What “backlash”? What consequences have Burn Loot Murder, or Antifa suffered? On the contrary, they’re lionized, and showered with $Billions in tax-exempt donations.

      “If the right were to revolt in the same way the left does, then the right would be labelled “national terrorists.” But despite the labels…”

      “The labels”? How about spending months (and counting) in prison with no bail, and in some cases no charges, or trials, like the Jan 6th protesters? Compare that treatment with the treatment of BLM and Antifa.

      “…this would be the same as what we see the left doing, except that it would make a clear statement on getting the country to steer back from where it’s headed.”

      Actually, peaceful, mass non-compliance seems to be having a much bigger, positive effect for the Right than any violence could.

      Like

      • zeonicfreak says:

        “What “backlash”? What consequences have Burn Loot Murder, or Antifa suffered? On the contrary, they’re lionized, and showered with $Billions in tax-exempt donations.”

        Hardly zero, unless they had tattoos and got pick up through the FBI database which has happened to a number of them, but not all of them sadly. Because of who is funding them and the media on their side, hardly no backlash unless your mentioned on Tucker Carlson to critique the left wing media.

        ““The labels”? How about spending months (and counting) in prison with no bail, and in some cases no charges, or trials, like the Jan 6th protesters? Compare that treatment with the treatment of BLM and Antifa.”

        Yea there’s the double standard behind that. The capital riot (which, I believe, it was a set up to begin with and organized to happen) had no one burning down the capital, and those that did physical damage to property got arrested, and those people who did are e-whores for attention through a streaming service called ip2.

        The thing with violence is, look at what Antifa did and how white people reacted: by bowing down in the droves to appease their new lords and masters. They got that through violent action, so clearly violence does turn results.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Violence always works. Pacifism does not. Stupid white people will say, “but Gandhi… but MLK…”, not knowing what they are talking about.

        Both of those men were moderates who didn’t threaten the system and were the compromise man. Don’t go along with MLK, get Nation of Islam and Black Panthers causing chaos. Don’t go along with Gandhi, get violent resistance.

        If you want something, present a threat and a compromise, i.e, move that Overton window.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Zeonicfreak

        “The thing with violence is look at what Antifa did and how white people reacted: by bowing down in the droves to appease their new lords and masters. They got that through violent action, so clearly violence does turn results.”

        Although Right-Wing violence is far less common than Left-Wing violence, it’s never accomplished much for the Right Wing. Just the opposite.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        BLM gets away with it because that community has a history of rioting and looting. Government knows if they crack down, there will be more chaos.

        Government also knows that white middle class wimps will not protest like that, and if they ever did, one swift government action will shut them up for good.

        The right wing isn’t cohesive. They aren’t a threat. Governments respect power. The right wing has none.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        Ghandi and MLK did though have something…. something behind them… the POTENTIAL violence that COULD happen. A gentle enough threat with passive resistance. Both MLK and Ghandi were also VERY articulate. Both were highly educated. Both knew when as leaders of when to push, and when to play along.

        Ghandi had the whole Nehru family along side him…. lawyers, a highly driven family, and they were achievers. MLK knew from a young age that “education” was his only way off the proverbial “plantation”, so to speak.

        Both in the end paid with their lives, making them into a martyr status in many ways….. mythological almost. Look at their families now though…. sad sacks of what their father / grandfather / great grandfathers were.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Yep. That was my point.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “…one swift government action will shut them [the white middle class] up for good…”

        The same is true of Burn Loot Murder, and Antifa. The difference is that government doesn’t take action against Left-Wing violence, but does take action against Right-Wing violence, no matter how insignificant. Again, see the difference in government response to all of 2020, and 6 Jan 2021.

        Like

      • zeonicfreak says:

        Correct me if im wrong, but the right didn’t take over the capital past a few hours and call it another CHAZ zone, try and grow crops in solo cups, and murder kids in SUVs. All of that of course happened in Seattle that only FOX News seemed to actually fully cover on, because it was that ridiculous.

        The only shots fired was from the one officer that shot a former USAF woman in the face.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ zeonicfreak

        “Correct me if I’m wrong, but the right didn’t take over the capital past a few hours and call it another CHAZ zone, try and grow crops in solo cups, and murder kids in SUVs. All of that of course happened in Seattle that only FOX News seemed to actually fully cover on, because it was that ridiculous.

        The only shots fired was from the one officer that shot a former USAF woman in the face.”

        My point exactly.

        The Left went on a nation-wide rampage for months, and the government did jack crap about it. The Right took an impromptu tour of the Capitol, and the government went after them with a vengeance, still has a bunch of them locked up, and essentially warned.

        That’s why Left-Wing violence “works”, and Right-Wing violence does not. It’s pretty easy to get your way when no one opposes you, and multinational corporations fund you by the $Billions.

        Remember Sun Tzu. When your enemy is strong, evade him.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @Lexet Blog

        The Left-Wing is the Government. And BLM and Antifa are Astroturf operations to give them Casus Belli and other methods.

        Like

      • info says:

        Consider that the Federal Bureaucracy is predominantly Democrat. And all the States where the riots take place are Democrat run cities.

        Democrat ruled areas are practically enemy territory.

        Like

  10. Pingback: 10 Defining Traits of Gnosticism | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s