26 August 2013

Accepting Defeat


Slumlord’s been knocking it out of the park recently, but I think I’ve detected a bit of defeatism in his tone:
Conservatism needs to be framed as a propositional ideology. Principally, it is an ideology which first and foremost believes in the truth and reality. The problem with such a conservatism though is that it is inaccessible to the cognitive miser, who votes with his gut instead of his head. Therefore the only way I can see that meaningful conservatism will reassert itself in the West will be either through;
1) An evangalisation of the democratic nations. In my opinion, unlikley.
2) The collapse of democracy and the reassertion of Conservatism by a cognitive/religious elite.
The way things are going, the second option seems the most probable.
And:
I suppose that the most important take home message from Richwine's post is that engagement with the media is going to be counterproductive, especially to those of the right.  Some blog commentator seem keen for media attention but I think that this desire is unwise.  I think its important for the nascent New Right/ Dark Enlightenment/Neo Reactionaries not to worry about sudden media exposure and the publicity it brings. The movement needs to establish roots which are deep, wide and strong. Just like undergound movements in occupied countries, we need to establish our bona fides by personal contact through person to person spread. Anyone who embraces the media is likely to end up as its lunch.

Sweet ghost of Edmund Burke but this is depressing.  Conservatism can’t win unless goes underground and survives social collapse?  That’s certainly a cause for optimism.

Honestly, though, I don’t really understand this defeatist mindset.  Yes, things sure are shitty right now, and progressivism has certainly continued its long, expansive, self-defeating march for a long time now, but I just don’t get the whole mindset where the only solution is to go dark and pray for collapse.  This may be the most probable outcome, but it is by no means the only possible response to the unfettered march of progressive ideology.

Instead, I would suggest that conservatives* try to win the culture war before they worry about winning the political war.  If it is truly the emotional tail that wags the cognitive dog, then changing the hearts of men must occur before you can change their minds or their behavior.  Thus, the solution to the problem is to make conservatism* cool again.

This is, in turn, accomplished by learning the basic elements of Game and applying them to social settings. Live by your own reality and refuse to deviate from it or concede ground to your opponents.  Reframe them as lunatics, liars, and illogical losers. Always act like your beliefs are perfectly rational and everyone else’s are delusional and retarded.  Be confident. Mock your opponents relentlessly. Don’t be a pussy, and don’t try to win people’s approval.  DO NOT try to win your opponent’s approval. Don’t be a suck up. Don’t ask for a seat at the table; demand it.  Always make sure that all leftists are properly labeled as basement-dwelling virgins who suck so much at living life that of course they need a government handout.  Assume the worst of your opponents, and make sure that they are constantly trying to prove themselves to the public.  Mostly, just have balls.

Regarding gay rights, it’s good to agree and amplify when discussing how bad gays have it:  “Not only can gays not get married in the benighted flyover states, gays who attempt to get married are arrested and sent to reeducation camps where rednecks force them to have sex with people of the opposite sex.  It’s basically the Soviet Union over there.”  Or be absurdly logical:  “You know what else is sad?  That Zoophiles can’t marry animals, that the incestuous can’t marry their parents or siblings, that polygamists can’t marry multiple partners, that pedophiles can’t marry children, necrophiles can’t marry dead people, etc.”  Or just reframe:  “You know how the government sucks at basically everything?  You should definitely let it regulate the most important relationship of your life.”

Each of these reframes basically work because all of them make gay rights into a matter to be mocked instead of something to be discussed seriously, and pinpoint the sheer stupidity of most of the arguments.** The reason why this is fairly easy to do is because gay rights activists are dishonest pieces of shit. If you simply extend their arguments to the logical extremes, the arguments quickly fall apart.  When this happens, you can call them either dishonest, stupid, or insane since only people who are dishonest, stupid, or insane would advance arguments that are illogical and fall apart so easily.  Needless to say, people who are dishonest, stupid, or insane are losers, and this should be rubbed in their face until they agree with you.

Also, it really helps to be cool, so the best thing to do is act like politics is a trivial pursuit, and only pussies get too worked up about it.  Thus, when you dispatch with a progressive loser, you frame all attempts he makes to rebut you as loser’s jealousy.  Basically, when you’re done, everyone should be thinking that you’re a cool guy who’s got the world figured out and that your opponent is a pathetic try-hard loser who will do anything for a seat at the table.

For further examples of how to accomplish this, just watch how the mainstream media has treated conservatives for the last forty years. Then go and do likewise.

* If you’re not a conservative but still hate progressivism feel free to insert a more relevant ideological label that describes you.  Personally, I’m rooting for anarchism, but would happily settle for Jeffersonian Liberalism.

** The whole notion of gays, or even anyone having a “right” to marry is absurd on its own terms.