Neocons Disgust Me, And the Youtube Comment UI Has Improved

[POFP]

Some panzee in the comments section of a Gavin McInnes video said something like "The black conservatives are growing." So I said the truth that neocons don't understand, which is that the black community has ALWAYS been conservative, and that the republicans would win the black vote every goddamn election if they focused on two things: Police reform, and violence in the black communities. Then, some guy came along and said something like "Yeah, but how do we tackle that issue? The black people cover for the bad apples in their midst... [insert neocon regurgitated shit here]." So I went on the following rant, and I realized that some it was stuff I already touched on here, but some of it was a little counter to the beliefs of this board. And I don't give a FUCK.




"Of course they cover for the bad apples. They see the world as them vs the police, and them vs the establishment. Sometimes even them vs the whites. And you know what, in a lot of places, that's exactly what it is. Rebuplicunts won't hear a word of it, but there is a solution to the problem: Reform law enforcement. They are a burden on white towns just as much as they are in mostly black areas. I live in a right-wing town run half by Rob Portman, and half by the Freemasons, and I gotta say, the police here are literal nazis. Openly racist. And with the funding style that conservatives enforce on local police especially, it supports that type of officer. They're given an incentive to be shit. They're given incentives to pull people over for going 3 over the speed limit, or for walking around at night past a certain time. It makes you feel like you're in enemy territory after 9 o'clock at night, even if you're fucking white.

Yes, there are good cops. Not all cops are bad. But the way we're "supporting our local law enforcement" is destroying the local black communities. My town literally ran almost all black people out of it. The head of that push was the police force.

If the Republicants want their guys in the oval office again, they're gonna need the black vote. When they start reaching out to them, they will get that vote every single goddamn election. If they don't do it soon, the black community will inevitably shift toward liberalism (Permanently). As a conservative, I am disgusted by their blatant attempts at dodging those issues just to appease the aspect of the party that is holding them down: The old racist pieces of shit that still have a hand in big money.

They claim that as conservatives, they are fundamentally opposed to making changes to policy based on social shifts, but what they don't understand is that these social shifts are due to the policies that have been introduced and due to lack of law enforcement oversight. They could do the ACTUAL conservative thing and UNDO the engorgement of the responsibilities of Law enforcement. But no, we cater to old ignorant bastards that can't be arsed to care about anyone but themselves."


And I will add that the last part there is why the Repubelicants are going in the neocon direction. They are all "Alpha" this, "cuck" that, [Insert PUA lingo here], etc. because they feel like the liberals are calling them weak. The thing is, they're fucking right. Republicans won't stand up against actual establishment because they're fucking pussies, so they're throwing the "fearless" PUAs up in front of them because they give the misleading appearance of strength and power. For this heresy, they will continue to lose support, and they will push us toward a liberal establishment that will go completely unchecked. It will be a government that not only lacks the checks and balances that were supposed to exist within the branches, but it will lose the checks and balances that were supposed to exist between the parties, and it will forever be one-sided.

Or Kill Me.

[Brother Mythos]

Some panzee in the comments section of a Gavin McInnes video said something like "The black conservatives are growing." So I said the truth that neocons don't understand, which is that the black community has ALWAYS been conservative, ...

Your statement about the black community having always been conservative caught me by surprise.

I'm not trying to start an argument with you. I would genuinely like to read more of your thoughts on the subject. Would you care to expound a little more on "black conservatism"? Thanks.

[POFP]

Some panzee in the comments section of a Gavin McInnes video said something like "The black conservatives are growing." So I said the truth that neocons don't understand, which is that the black community has ALWAYS been conservative, ...

Your statement about the black community having always been conservative caught me by surprise.

I'm not trying to start an argument with you. I would genuinely like to read more of your thoughts on the subject. Would you care to expound a little more on "black conservatism"? Thanks.

Not a problem at all. And also, I am no enemy of arguments. Just let me know if YOU want to avoid an argument, and I will do the same.



Let me start by saying that when I say they've always been conservative, I mean that in the modern sense of conservative, not in the sense of each individual era previous. The blacks did not want to keep slavery, nor did they want to keep Jim Crow. In their times, these were considered conservative ideologies. Conservative, in the sense that I was describing, means that the government should be smaller than what it is, economically, but be stricter in social terms. Nowadays, stricter social control by the government is widely disapproved of by many, publicly. I, personally, am also against stricter social control by the government, even though I consider myself a conservative. But fundamental conservatism technically includes a social aspect.

Take this here graph:




Now, we need some history.

During the era of slavery in the United States, there were few things that could keep the black family strong - Keep them together, hopeful, and fighting for survival - like religion could. You can find the strong ties to Religious Community among the enslaved population in the music that was created directly from slavery: The Blues.

You see my avatar? That's Robert Johnson. One of the greatest blues guitarists to ever walk this earth. The bastard played the guitar in two different ways at the same goddamn time, and did so before guitarists could even play fast. Legend was, he sold his soul to the Devil at a crossroads for that skill. And he made a song about it. Point is, heavy religious undertones and overtones and every tone in between.

In dedicating themselves to their hope that was their Religious Community, they developed a strict sense of dignity and self-worth in it. They put the concept of respect on a pedestal. They kept their outward behavior towards each other and everyone else as strict and mannerly as possible. They were trained to do so even more by all forms of negative and positive reinforcement by their owners. This lasted generations. And exiting slavery into Jim Crow, they became even more strict on this, in some ways. You had to follow the rules of respect in society if you were to make anything out of yourself, being black in this era, and even then, it was damn-near impossible. But as blacks began to emphasize dignity and community, and build each other up, their potential became more obvious and their social strictness started to pay off over the years.

In the transitional era between Early Jim Crow and now, there was too much blatant racism for blunt resistance to be safe. Those who violently resisted (and they had every right to), were killed or worse. The ones that survived and prospered were the ones that took a Booker T Washington approach, by following social code and pushing themselves up economically, at least to a more comfortable position than absolute squalor. And that became a large part of the black population. Right out of slavery, and all the way through Jim Crow, the black family was STRONG. Religious Community among blacks was STRONG. They stood united in it and were making HUGE strides in Civil Rights. Their desire for real Freedom then makes our current desire for Freedom in America a fucking joke. It is within the last few decades that the black family strength has taken its biggest toll, and it is mostly due to consistent, systematic violence against black communities.

Fear, in this day and age, is extremely effective. And black communities are shrouded in it because law enforcement goes unchecked. If the Republicans changed ship on that one thing, they'd have minority votes out the wazoo.

In regards to the graph I had above, the blacks have shifted from top leftish (Depending on the era, but they have mostly stayed upper middle due to economic inequality still being present) to bottom rightish, but they are actually still fairly conservative. If anything, they may be more moderate, except they are more likely to swing conservative due to religious similarities with the right-wing. If they changed their mind on police, that is.

Also, I must stress that all of this mostly only applies to blacks in the US, as far as I know. I can't say anything about blacks outside of America.

[Pergamos]

I do not see conservatives as being against economic control.  They tend to favor restrictions on unionization and strike tactics as well as draconian restrictions on the use of government aid such as food stamps.  They do favor lower taxes, and oppose restrictions on corporations such as safety regs, environmental regs and so forth but economically they tend to favor the rich over the poor and the employer over the employee rather than more or less regulation in general.

[POFP]

I do not see conservatives as being against economic control.  They tend to favor restrictions on unionization and strike tactics as well as draconian restrictions on the use of government aid such as food stamps.  They do favor lower taxes, and oppose restrictions on corporations such as safety regs, environmental regs and so forth but economically they tend to favor the rich over the poor and the employer over the employee rather than more or less regulation in general.

The disagreement is due to the difference between what real conservatives fight for, and what fake conservatives have achieved for themselves.

Fundamentally, unionization imposes limitations on the employer. While in that case it is in favor of the employer, the conservative position is intended to be unbiased to either the employee or the employer, and instead is intended to leave the natural order of things to act as the checks and balances. What this position ignores is the fact that some people start out with more power and money than others. I would argue that certain forms of regulation are absolutely necessary for the conservative economy to function. But that any and all regulations asserted should be fought and questioned every step of the way, so as not to promote rapid increased strength of central government.

My point is, conservatism is fundamentally against governmental control of the economy. Control of the economy by groups or individuals separate from governmental interests is allowed within the conservatism that I outline in the post. However, this is mostly because the Founding Fathers were biased against any governmental control in light of their previous oppressor, and so kept their attention away from the potential faults of monopolies and hardships of the worker, for example. The reasonable Paleocon knows this was a mistake and is ok with reading proposed solutions.

[Pergamos]

I do not see conservatives as being against economic control.  They tend to favor restrictions on unionization and strike tactics as well as draconian restrictions on the use of government aid such as food stamps.  They do favor lower taxes, and oppose restrictions on corporations such as safety regs, environmental regs and so forth but economically they tend to favor the rich over the poor and the employer over the employee rather than more or less regulation in general.

The disagreement is due to the difference between what real conservatives fight for, and what fake conservatives have achieved for themselves.

Fundamentally, unionization imposes limitations on the employer. While in that case it is in favor of the employer, the conservative position is intended to be unbiased to either the employee or the employer, and instead is intended to leave the natural order of things to act as the checks and balances. What this position ignores is the fact that some people start out with more power and money than others. I would argue that certain forms of regulation are absolutely necessary for the conservative economy to function. But that any and all regulations asserted should be fought and questioned every step of the way, so as not to promote rapid increased strength of central government.

My point is, conservatism is fundamentally against governmental control of the economy. Control of the economy by groups or individuals separate from governmental interests is allowed within the conservatism that I outline in the post. However, this is mostly because the Founding Fathers were biased against any governmental control in light of their previous oppressor, and so kept their attention away from the potential faults of monopolies and hardships of the worker, for example. The reasonable Paleocon knows this was a mistake and is ok with reading proposed solutions.

My point is that limitations on strike tactics, such as sympathy strikes, supply line strikes and so forth are absolutely economic regulation by government.  Unionization may limit an employer but that is limitation within the market, not government limitation.

[POFP]

I do not see conservatives as being against economic control.  They tend to favor restrictions on unionization and strike tactics as well as draconian restrictions on the use of government aid such as food stamps.  They do favor lower taxes, and oppose restrictions on corporations such as safety regs, environmental regs and so forth but economically they tend to favor the rich over the poor and the employer over the employee rather than more or less regulation in general.

The disagreement is due to the difference between what real conservatives fight for, and what fake conservatives have achieved for themselves.

Fundamentally, unionization imposes limitations on the employer. While in that case it is in favor of the employer, the conservative position is intended to be unbiased to either the employee or the employer, and instead is intended to leave the natural order of things to act as the checks and balances. What this position ignores is the fact that some people start out with more power and money than others. I would argue that certain forms of regulation are absolutely necessary for the conservative economy to function. But that any and all regulations asserted should be fought and questioned every step of the way, so as not to promote rapid increased strength of central government.

My point is, conservatism is fundamentally against governmental control of the economy. Control of the economy by groups or individuals separate from governmental interests is allowed within the conservatism that I outline in the post. However, this is mostly because the Founding Fathers were biased against any governmental control in light of their previous oppressor, and so kept their attention away from the potential faults of monopolies and hardships of the worker, for example. The reasonable Paleocon knows this was a mistake and is ok with reading proposed solutions.

My point is that limitations on strike tactics, such as sympathy strikes, supply line strikes and so forth are absolutely economic regulation by government.  Unionization may limit an employer but that is limitation within the market, not government limitation.

Unions derive their power from their ability to lobby government and enforce their own existence. Now, unions that only use their due revenue to pay employers to provide benefits for those in their union are not a threat to conservative ideology as long as government isn't directly involved in subsidizing any part of the benefits. And even the extreme forms of union lobbying was valid, in my opinion, during the Industrial Revolution. I believe radical forms of either liberalism or conservatism are necessary when one is completely out of line. I see that as the balance that keeps our society going.

As for limitations by government on strikes: If a strike is keeping a company from doing what it needs to do to function on its own property, then it's being done wrong. If a union or crowdfund allows a group of employees to be paid to not work in order to protest what a company's doing, then I see that as completely viable.

[Pergamos]

As for limitations by government on strikes: If a strike is keeping a company from doing what it needs to do to function on its own property, then it's being done wrong.

Is the word Not missing from this?  A strike which does not interfere with a company's ability to do what it needs to do to function is not going to effect any sort of change whatsoever.

Unions and corporations both lobby the government but the tactics I am talking about are not lobbying, they are direct disruption of company operation by withdrawing labor from the equation.

[POFP]

As for limitations by government on strikes: If a strike is keeping a company from doing what it needs to do to function on its own property, then it's being done wrong.

Is the word Not missing from this?  A strike which does not interfere with a company's ability to do what it needs to do to function is not going to effect any sort of change whatsoever.

Unions and corporations both lobby the government but the tactics I am talking about are not lobbying, they are direct disruption of company operation by withdrawing labor from the equation.

I was saying withdrawing labor from the equation was completely fine. The burden of finding replacements during the strikes would be on the company. But allowing strikers to literally loiter and trespass and actively disrupt the company is simply not ok in my opinion, at least not in modern day. The same freedom could be used by corporations or interest groups to trespass and bully small businesses a lot more effectively than an organization could bully a big company in the same way. Companies should be able to control who is on their property, and what people are capable of doing on their property.

Also, I don't agree with our lobbying system in general. It is mostly the method by which corporations exert control over the entire system.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm surprised that it isn't widely known that black communities in the US tend toward fiscal moderate and social conservative, even though they are majority Democrat.

I like this rant, though I think it would be more effective minus the "Republicunt", etc. namecalling.

[POFP]

I'm surprised that it isn't widely known that black communities in the US tend toward fiscal moderate and social conservative, even though they are majority Democrat.

I like this rant, though I think it would be more effective minus the "Republicunt", etc. namecalling.

Thank you

I agree, but I was kinda in the moment pissed off as a conservative at other conservatives and figured I'd post the whole thing uncensored and unchanged, and then clarify afterwards.

Also, I think the confusion is due to the fact that religion and isolation, as a combination, are a lot more powerful of an incubator for social conservatism than people realize, or they assume that Because they were a slighted (bit if an understatement, really) minority for so long, that they would mostly be rebellious against such a tendency. It is counter-intuitive at first glance, but it all does make sense once people understand some more background.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Addressing your ideological enemy by its proper name is almost always the right move. Besides coming across as juvenile, namecalling shuts down any chance you had of infiltrating the enemy's mental defenses (always a long shot, but no sense in killing your chances yourself) and leaves the door open for misinterpretations such as "oh they only mean the *bad* [ideological enemy]s" or "this person doesn't really know [ideological enemy]s in the first place!" Names have power. Pin the motherfuckers down when you go after them.

[POFP]

Addressing your ideological enemy by its proper name is almost always the right move. Besides coming across as juvenile, namecalling shuts down any chance you had of infiltrating the enemy's mental defenses (always a long shot, but no sense in killing your chances yourself) and leaves the door open for misinterpretations such as "oh they only mean the *bad* [ideological enemy]s" or "this person doesn't really know [ideological enemy]s in the first place!" Names have power. Pin the motherfuckers down when you go after them.

Oh, yes. I never really thought of it this way. I'll keep this in mind.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Addressing your ideological enemy by its proper name is almost always the right move.

Yeah, the moment someone says "Killary" or "HiLIARy", for example, I shut right down.  Same with "Drumf". 

[Pergamos]

Namecalling is tribalism, it means that your message is intended not for the people you are calling names, but those who oppose them.  It can be useful for persuasion if the important topic is not whoever you are calling names, but something else entirely and the namecalling is simply a way to show your target that you are on the same side.