Paradigm Shift in US Conservatism

Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,171
Likes
1,044
#1
I can't express enough excitement at what just happened at Charlie Kirk's latest Turning Point USA meeting. One listener after the other took the Q&A session to literally wreck Charlie Kirk and his guest speaker with questions that make the typical neocon puppet's ass crack sweat.

Each and every one of those groyper interventions were nothing less than heroic, but if you have to see one, make sure you go to 22:50 for the "dancing Israelis" part and hopefully it'll bring as much joy to you as it did to me and Nick Fuentes.

Q&A starts at 4:10

 





Last edited:
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
4,151
Likes
4,594
#3
What used to constitute actual conservatism is dead. Its been replaced by a cult of narcissism and excess, with a priority on developing excuses and rationals that point the finger everywhere except back at themselves. A prime example of this is the vulgarity that so many "conservatives" are suddenly comfortable foisting on the public....... such as "cuckservative". This is who many of them have been all along I suspect, but Donny Tinyhands conned them into letting the monkey out, so here we are.......
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
4,151
Likes
4,594
#5
Conservative values are the hallmark of true conservatism. Employing those values in pursuit of their policy goals used to be their gameplan. Now the plan seems to be squeezing as much red-meat rhetoric as possible out of Cheetohead while seeing just how much of their heads will fit in the sand and the fraking beach of their choice........
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,835
Likes
6,506
#7
I had to do a little research to understand the context of the video. Now obviously I don't really follow this stuff, maybe I'm still missing something but it doesn't seem like a paradigm shift.

I'm not seeing a shift, to me, it's always been a question of who is honest about their more radical beliefs. One of those beliefs simply views everyone who makes an argument as a sitting duck. That isn't some new idea or deep strategy. They are just being honest about how they are picking off the most exposed targets. And unfortunately, that strategy doesn't work in modern times.

This behavior of picking off the weakest Youtuber seems short-sighted at best. It's like being outflanked by a superweapon and being like we're good, let's hit the YouTubers. I suppose the illusion of victory is still better than acknowledging assured defeat at the hands of a superweapon. But come on, who can seriously be like yeah, our thing is shooting the sitting ducks.

Maybe I would watch someone shoot fish in a bucket for a minute. But I could write a whole essay about how it's weak and boring.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,835
Likes
6,506
#9
Who is this weakest YouTuber you have in mind?
I was speaking generally. Replace Youtuber with any social media, internet or activist organization.

If the point is to expose weak conservatives on any platform than I don't see it as some shift. Mainly because, as I said before, this has always happened. Maybe it's more apparent now.

What we are seeing is a camp of conservatives who seem not to care about optics, but come off as less genuine than the conservatives who do. I say that because it's easy not caring about optics when you're not on the chopping block.
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,171
Likes
1,044
#10
I wouldn't call Charlie Kirk a weak conservative. He is the face of the future GOP, sponsored by the Kochs (a genuine Kochsucker) to bring young conservatism into the fold of the republican establishment. But it's not working. His rep is starting to collapse and the GOP is getting more and more heat from Generation Z asking the right questions. Give it some more time and the paradigm shift will become more and more visible.
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
4,151
Likes
4,594
#11
I'm still left wondering what you think are actual or true conservative values.
Traditional, Conservative values:
- Fiscal conservatism and practicality
- Outlaw abortion, exempting situations of r*pe, incest or the mothers life being in jeopardy. In such cases, Mom makes the call.
- Crackdown on openly sold (I.E. 7-11s, family bookstores and etc) and unregulated pornography and other products of moral decay.
- Staunch support for US Constitution/Bill Of Rights/3 branches of GOV which provide the needed checks, balances and oversight.
- Willingness to address ones own shortcomings before railing against others.

These are a few of the standout qualities a true conservative should be willing to develop within themselves imo.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,171
Likes
1,044
#12
Fiscal conservatism is a pretty modern conservative position stemming from neocons.

The Groypers are more in line with the America First conservatism of Pat Buchanan, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh and Father Coughlin.

Paleoconservatism:

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleocon) is a conservative political philosophy which stresses traditionalism, limited government, Christian ethics, regionalism and nationalism.[a]
Paleoconservatism's concerns overlap those of the Old Right that opposed the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s.[1] According to the international relations scholar Michael Foley, "paleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration, a rollback of Multicultural programs, the decentralization of federal policy, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism and noninterventionism in the conduct of American foreign policy".[2]
Political theorist Paul Gottfried states that the term originally referred to various Americans, such as conservative and traditionalist Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anti-communism during the Cold War.[3]
...​
Paleoconservatives support restrictions on immigration, decentralization, trade tariffs and protectionism, economic nationalism, isolationism and a return to traditional conservative ideals relating to gender, ethnicity, and race.[10] Paleoconservatism differs from neoconservatism in opposing free trade and promoting Republicanism in the United States. Paleoconservatives see neoconservatives as empire-builders and themselves as defenders of the republic.[11]
As with other conservatives, paleoconservatives tend to oppose abortion on demand, oppose LGBTQ rights, oppose welfare, and gay marriage, while supporting handgun ownership.[10][12]
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
4,151
Likes
4,594
#13
I think you may be confusing fiscal conservatism and the austerity measures pushed by the likes of those you have mentioned here.
However I dont consider the names you mentioned to be true conservatives.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,835
Likes
6,506
#14
I wouldn't call Charlie Kirk a weak conservative. He is the face of the future GOP, sponsored by the Kochs (a genuine Kochsucker) to bring young conservatism into the fold of the republican establishment. But it's not working. His rep is starting to collapse and the GOP is getting more and more heat from Generation Z asking the right questions. Give it some more time and the paradigm shift will become more and more visible.
Gotcha.

I don't think the video you linked did a good job explaining the story there. Maybe I missed the right questions being asked, but I saw a lot of trolling type questions.

Flaming someone isn't a shift in anything, besides temperature. People have to actually believe the idea to do a proper paradigm shift. All I'm saying is, this seems like Generation Z's entertainment flavor of the month.
 





Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
52
Likes
29
#15
True conservatives means protecting the culture and traditions in place. Nick Fuentes, the person leading this groyper movement, had a great video outlining the differences between conservatism and the liberalism. One of they key points was the conservatism is hierarchical. He also pointed out that Conservatism (in America) is Christian and European. That is the only way to conserve the culture and traditions of the country. Mass immigration is inherently anti-conservative because it's obviously going to lead to rapid societal and cultural change.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,835
Likes
6,506
#16
True conservatives means protecting the culture and traditions in place. Nick Fuentes, the person leading this groyper movement, had a great video outlining the differences between conservatism and the liberalism. One of they key points was the conservatism is hierarchical. He also pointed out that Conservatism (in America) is Christian and European. That is the only way to conserve the culture and traditions of the country. Mass immigration is inherently anti-conservative because it's obviously going to lead to rapid societal and cultural change.
Some of America's first immigrants were considered "aliens". Upon their arrival, the economy boomed. Cultures shifted, and nobody looks back and says we should have shut that door. America didn't become a superpower because of strict immigration laws.

I see the Groypers as not protecting culture but simply picking one side of an already polarizing issue. They haven't grown up witnessing the dangers of immigration, they are piggybacking off the "culture war" of the 1990s. A war that was basically dead on arrival, because America isn't hurting from Mexicans taking our jobs. America is hurting from the rich taking all the wealth.
 





Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
52
Likes
29
#17
First of all you're talking about drastically different times in America's history. The industrial revolution when we had a rapidly growing economy and factories popping up everywhere, where now we can barely clear 2% and even that's sketchy and propped up. Secondly, people don't like to acknowledge that European immigrants were different. They were committed to assimilating and 2nd and 3rd generation European immigrants were virtually indistinguishable from each other. Unlike today, where immigrants see themselves as global citizens more like Americans, just the way elites like it.

Okay Elizabeth Warrent lol. You know the wealthy like the Koch brothers are the biggest advocates of mass immigration, amnesty, open borders, ect... because it makes them tons of money. You're being a useful idiot playing into their hands. The labor market is supply and demand like any other. Bring in more immigrants and more supply of labor and wages will be suppressed. Actually white collar wages have been slumping even harder than blue collar lately because of all the Indian/Asian immigration and things like H1B visas.

The culture wars aren't dead, they're increasing. Trump was the first step, he channeled some of his inner Pat Buchanan in 2016. Every poll shows Republicans are getting more and more concerned about immigration and America losing its identity. Yeah we look to someone like Pat Buchanan as a hero but the reason his ideas resonate so much with us is because we don't like what we're seeing in our country.

Btw, a little history lesson. America had low immigration numbers from the 1920s through the 1960s and people were happy with it. Then the politicians lied passing the 1965 immigration act claiming it wouldn't increase immigration or change the demograhic makeup of the country, which people didn't want change. They lied and that's exactly what happened. You'll notice on the graphs, the point in time where wages flatline and the point in time where immigration blows up are the same.
SP-FRS-datahub1-Apr2014-500x362.jpg prwg1-1024x854.png
 





Attachments

Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,835
Likes
6,506
#18
First of all you're talking about drastically different times in America's history. The industrial revolution when we had a rapidly growing economy and factories popping up everywhere, where now we can barely clear 2% and even that's sketchy and propped up. Secondly, people don't like to acknowledge that European immigrants were different. They were committed to assimilating and 2nd and 3rd generation European immigrants were virtually indistinguishable from each other. Unlike today, where immigrants see themselves as global citizens more like Americans, just the way elites like it.

Okay Elizabeth Warrent lol. You know the wealthy like the Koch brothers are the biggest advocates of mass immigration, amnesty, open borders, ect... because it makes them tons of money. You're being a useful idiot playing into their hands. The labor market is supply and demand like any other. Bring in more immigrants and more supply of labor and wages will be suppressed. Actually white collar wages have been slumping even harder than blue collar lately because of all the Indian/Asian immigration and things like H1B visas.

The culture wars aren't dead, they're increasing. Trump was the first step, he channeled some of his inner Pat Buchanan in 2016. Every poll shows Republicans are getting more and more concerned about immigration and America losing its identity. Yeah we look to someone like Pat Buchanan as a hero but the reason his ideas resonate so much with us is because we don't like what we're seeing in our country.

Btw, a little history lesson. America had low immigration numbers from the 1920s through the 1960s and people were happy with it. Then the politicians lied passing the 1965 immigration act claiming it wouldn't increase immigration or change the demograhic makeup of the country, which people didn't want change. They lied and that's exactly what happened. You'll notice on the graphs, the point in time where wages flatline and the point in time where immigration blows up are the same.
View attachment 29321 View attachment 29319
I don't have time to dig into all of this atm. When I do I will explain all the reasons why you are wrong.

I think it's funny how you call people useful idiots though. You are the one jumping on the backs of the culture warriors. I'm just a free thinker. Who thinks closing the borders might make people feel better, but I doubt there will be any sort of economic shift. That's fairy tale land, my man.

There's no direct correlation between the data you presented. Wage flatlining has happened for a number of reasons and again I will go into it when I have time.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,835
Likes
6,506
#19
First of all you're talking about drastically different times in America's history. The industrial revolution when we had a rapidly growing economy and factories popping up everywhere, where now we can barely clear 2% and even that's sketchy and propped up. Secondly, people don't like to acknowledge that European immigrants were different. They were committed to assimilating and 2nd and 3rd generation European immigrants were virtually indistinguishable from each other. Unlike today, where immigrants see themselves as global citizens more like Americans, just the way elites like it.
The timeline shouldn't matter if we are talking about preserving culture. I gave you a clear example of how cultures mixing together worked out very well for America. And your retort seems like a baseless assumption. Europeans assimilated better? What does that even mean? Either way the point I'm getting at is the immigration brought innovation. And your whole ideology would let other countries pass us by.

Okay Elizabeth Warrent lol. You know the wealthy like the Koch brothers are the biggest advocates of mass immigration, amnesty, open borders, ect... because it makes them tons of money. You're being a useful idiot playing into their hands. The labor market is supply and demand like any other. Bring in more immigrants and more supply of labor and wages will be suppressed. Actually white collar wages have been slumping even harder than blue collar lately because of all the Indian/Asian immigration and things like H1B visas.
A personal attack has been noted. Also, I barely know who Elizabeth Warren is. The idea that I'm a useful idiot to anyone is way out there man. Your argument is mostly name dropping and buzzwords. Now maybe I can help you paradigm shift away from the misconceptions you have been spoonfed. Wages have slumped because robotics and microprocessors have made the average blue-collar worker obsolete. And we should probably address the problem of other countries outpacing us in subjects like math.

The culture wars aren't dead, they're increasing. Trump was the first step, he channeled some of his inner Pat Buchanan in 2016. Every poll shows Republicans are getting more and more concerned about immigration and America losing its identity. Yeah we look to someone like Pat Buchanan as a hero but the reason his ideas resonate so much with us is because we don't like what we're seeing in our country.
It's great how you acted like I was channeling Elizabeth Warren, then completely mischaracterized Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan's whole argument was about morals. And I agree with him to some extent. However, I don't think he or you understand we don't live in the dark ages anymore. Channeling and sock puppets aren't the shift we need. We need an education that works in this futuristic world we live in.

Btw, a little history lesson. America had low immigration numbers from the 1920s through the 1960s and people were happy with it. Then the politicians lied passing the 1965 immigration act claiming it wouldn't increase immigration or change the demograhic makeup of the country, which people didn't want change. They lied and that's exactly what happened. You'll notice on the graphs, the point in time where wages flatline and the point in time where immigration blows up are the same.
Your history is sketchy though, and economics even worse. The increase of immigration you speak of was minuscule in the 1960s. Like you can't possibly explain how the addition of 5 million immigrant workers instantly flatlined wage growth. Given how the total workforce was over 60 million there has to be other factors involved. Like the things, I'm constantly bringing up. Technology, population growth, education, and inflation.

You probably found those charts on a meme and decided to run with it. And I'm ultimately unimpressed and left feeling like you are shilling it up to the max.
 





Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
52
Likes
29
#20
The timeline shouldn't matter if we are talking about preserving culture. I gave you a clear example of how cultures mixing together worked out very well for America. And your retort seems like a baseless assumption. Europeans assimilated better? What does that even mean? Either way the point I'm getting at is the immigration brought innovation. And your whole ideology would let other countries pass us by.



A personal attack has been noted. Also, I barely know who Elizabeth Warren is. The idea that I'm a useful idiot to anyone is way out there man. Your argument is mostly name dropping and buzzwords. Now maybe I can help you paradigm shift away from the misconceptions you have been spoonfed. Wages have slumped because robotics and microprocessors have made the average blue-collar worker obsolete. And we should probably address the problem of other countries outpacing us in subjects like math.



It's great how you acted like I was channeling Elizabeth Warren, then completely mischaracterized Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan's whole argument was about morals. And I agree with him to some extent. However, I don't think he or you understand we don't live in the dark ages anymore. Channeling and sock puppets aren't the shift we need. We need an education that works in this futuristic world we live in.



Your history is sketchy though, and economics even worse. The increase of immigration you speak of was minuscule in the 1960s. Like you can't possibly explain how the addition of 5 million immigrant workers instantly flatlined wage growth. Given how the total workforce was over 60 million there has to be other factors involved. Like the things, I'm constantly bringing up. Technology, population growth, education, and inflation.

You probably found those charts on a meme and decided to run with it. And I'm ultimately unimpressed and left feeling like you are shilling it up to the max.
My point about immigrants is that all immigrants aren't the same. European immigrants assimilate and valued America as a sovereign nation. The immigrants we're getting post 1965 don't assimilate and are undermining sovereignty and support globalism. If you're focused on innovation and not falling behind, I don't want to cut off immigration completely. We can let in people who are supremely talented and have genius level IQs. Immigration levels are about 1.2 million today. I want them under 100k. Elon Musk can come, genius level engineers we are lacking can come in, everyone else stay out including H1Bs.

Supply and demand is a simple economics concept. The point where wages flatline is the 70s when immigration really takes off after many decades of low immigration. I'll grant that it isn't the only factor but it's an important one. You keep mentioning blue collar wages when wages at all levels have slumped, white collar is even worse. That's how you know immigration is a factor. The college educated office/computer/ect jobs have stagnant wages too because of Asian and Indian immigration.

You can say I'm using buzzwords but the fact is the ultra wealthy are the biggest advocates of mass immigration and lobby Congress hard for more immigration. So you are on on the side of the wealthy and globalists.

I have no problem identifying with Pat Buchanan.You act like that's a negative when I'm proud to be influenced by his ideology. It's true that morals are a key piece of his platform but so is American identity and sovereignty. The thing about people like you is that you've accepted the globalist propaganda that diversity is this wonderful amazing thing and it overrides any anti-globalist leanings you might have, so you are completely useless in fighting the globalists moving forward.