Tag Archives: Politics

The Centre Doesn’t Exist

A couple weeks back I showed why conservatism is always doomed to fail. A healthy reaction within the overton window is necessary for society to not continuously degenerate. Moderate conservatives who oppose ‘right-wing extremists’ and try to set them as outside the are the enemy of all conservatism as they are rigging the game in the liberal’s favour. As well, given the way our overton window is framed, compromise is always a liberal victory and a conservative loss; any conservative advocating compromise is advocating his own loss. That is reason enough to dislike conservative moderates.

But my point today is not to talk just about conservatives moderates, but rather to talk about centrists and moderates as a whole. It is popular in our society to oppose “extremism”. Politicians are expected to be reasonable, and to find a balance between the partisan divides of left and right.

But this is a false idea. There is no such thing as a political centre.

Radish created a graphic of the left-to-right spectrum:

Now, the graphic may not be perfect (ex: I think Andrew Jacksonshould have been a bit more right), but it shows the main point, our overton window is a narrow slice far to the left of most of history.

In other words, someone who held the same views as a centrist today would have been moderate liberal a decade ago, a liberal 30 years ago, a socialist 70 years ago, a communist a century ago, a bomb-throwing anarchist two centuries ago, and insane four centuries ago.

For an example, let’s just take the cause de jeur: gay “marriage”, which is now, in 2015, supported by “moderate” “conservatives” and is currently illegal to oppose in any real way in some states. In 2008, just 7 years ago, “moderate” liberal Obama opposed it. In 1996, less than 20 years ago, “moderate” liberal Clinton signed a law banning gay “marriage”. In the 1980’s, only gay radicals were pressing for “marriage”, in the 1970’s not even most gay activists were for gay “marriage”. Before that, it was hardly ever even mentioned. In 1962, just 50 years ago, sodomy was itself illegal in every state. In 1953, less than seven decades ago, just mentioning gay marriage or writing about homosexuality was considered obscence. Just over two centuries ago sodomy merited a death penalty (although these laws were rarely enforced and went beyond just homosexuality). In the 1500’s, the debate was between whether the church or the king would execute homosexuals. Talking of homosexual “marriage” at this time would have been seen as insanity.

This is not an argument on the merits or demerits of homosexual issues, but rather an illustration. What is the moderate position?

For most of English history, the execution of homosexuals would have been seen as normal, it would have been the centrist position. Just decriminalizing homosexuality is in itself, regarding the full scope of English history, an extremely liberal act. Those “moderate” “conservatives” petitioning the Supreme Court are neither. They are extreme leftists.

This is why the political centre doesn’t exist. A centre has to exist in relation to opposite points and there are no true opposing points. There are just two points near each other constantly shifting ever leftward, with the overton window currently situated between the extreme left and the even more extreme left.

A moderate stance is not a virtue and centrists are the most unreasoning. Because there is no point or range that could reasonably be called “the centre”, political centrism or moderation is ideologically bankrupt. They have latched onto nothing real, but instead have allowed society to dictate their beliefs to them. They are either hollow pragmatists, opportunists, or too unthinking to have actually developed a a coherent ideological framework for themselves.

Conservatism is Always Doomed

Let us posit that society is at point “X” on a particular issue.

The conservative position is to conserve X.

The liberal position is to ‘progress’ to X+10.

We can posit there are some hardcore conservatives that wish to conserve X-10, the society of a few years back.

We can also posit that some hardcore liberals wish to progress to X+20.

Now we posit an overton window is accepting of the range: hardcore conservative to hardcore liberal. There are some rightests who want x-50 and some leftists who want x+50, but these are radicals and fall outside the overton window, the debate is generally kept to the conservatives and liberals, with the hardcore of each allowed a voice but being outside the mainstream.

From this we now see the range of acceptable opinion is from X-10 to X+20, while the mainstream and centrists would be be in the range of X to X+10.

Any positive deviation from X is a liberal victory and a conservative defeat. The liberals might want X+10, but X+5 is still better for them, while X+5 is still farther away from the X conservatives are conserving.

Yet the moderate opinion is almost always X+Y, it is never X-Y, and only rarely just X. So, the vast majority of acceptable choices are conservative losses and liberal gains, while non-loss is the best a conservative can realistically hope for.

The conservative will almost always lose this game.

Of course, the game is never a single competition; in real life it always iterated. In an iterated game, the conservative will always lose eventually.

****

To make matters worse for the conservatives, is that after the conservatives have lost, the centre changes.

Let use say the game is played and a compromise was reached, neither the conservatives nor the liberals got everything they wanted and the decision to implement X+5 was reached. After a few years or a decade or two, point X+5 has become the new norm for society, point “Y”. A conservative is now conserving point Y.

The game is now being played over the territory of Y to Y+10.

If one more compromise results in a decision to implement Y+5, it has come to the point where where liberals have obtained X+10, while the conservatives have lost completely.

As more iterations occur, society will always move towards the liberal position, with only slight slowdowns and the rare win of hardcore conservatives.

****

So in any political body where conservatism and liberalism are the opposed choices, conservatism is always doomed.

To not lose the conservatives have to win completely every single time. Compromise is always a long-term liberal gain and conservative loss. Any liberal win is almost always permanent, while any conservative win will likely be lost after a few more iterations.

The only way for society to not become perpetually more liberal is to make conservatism the centre. If conservatism is not the political centre, the game is always rigged in the favour of liberals.

Conservatism is always doomed.

For any society to not inevitably become increasingly liberal, reaction must always be posed against liberalism, with conservativism as the centre.

Any conservative who opposes reaction is setting himself up for a loss. Reaction is the proper opposition to liberalism, conservatism is not.

****

* All numbers used are arbitrary and meaningless, useful for only for illustrative purposes.

Feminism is About Equality…

Feminism is about equality or feminism is about equal rights is a common motte used by feminists. I’ve already shown how that is not true and shown the ideological reasons feminists like to push this bit of drivel, so go read that if that’s what your looking for.

Instead, today I’m going to show that anybody using this phrase inherently recognizes that equality is meaningless conceptual nonsense, or possibly that they simply grossly ignorant of that of which they speak.

Feminism has gone through a number of evolutions. There have been three major evolutions of feminism: the first focusing on suffrage and prohibition, a second focusing on domesticity, patriarchy, and access to the workplace, and the third is more diffuse but tends to focus on empowerment and abolishing gender roles.

Just in these very broad outlines we can see the contradictions of various form of feminism. First wave feminism and prohibition were virtually indistinguishable, yet one of today’s large post-feminist empowerment crusades is the “right” of women to get as irresponsibly drunk as they want without having to take responsibility for any actions taken while drunk. The need to dress sexily for men was on of the shackles of patriarchy the second-wave tried to throw off, while self-proclaimed feminist sluts of the third-wave are arguing for their right to dress as whores without being judged for it.

When you add in all the various permutations of feminism the contradictions abound even more: Sex-positive feminists and anti-porn feminists, TERFs and queer theory feminists, liberal feminists and radical feminists, equity and gender feminists, choice feminists and actual feminists, etc.

Given the vast array of what feminists desire, we can now see why equality is meaningles nonsense. If feminism is about equality that means equality is simultaneously defined as banning alcohol, getting irresponsibly drunk, dressing like a slut, not dressing like a slut, having lots of heterosexual sex, making pronography, avoiding non-lesbian sex, people with penises are men, those same people with penises are women, being economically independent, not being economically independent, being given equal access to the workforce, and being given preferential access to the workforce.

To anybody with two brain cells to rub together, this mess of contradictions means equality is simply a nonsense phrase with no real meaning besides some vague Orwellian exo-semantic feelings of ‘good’.

Anybody saying feminism is about equality either believes assumes equality is a meaningless word, has not actually thought of what they’re saying, is ignorant of even the basics of feminist thought and history, or is dishonest.

Abolish Prison

Count Nothingface made a crack at libertarians wanting to abolish prison on Twitter. I happen agree with the libertarians on this one, prison should be abolished. On the other hand, I think it should be replaced with things those same libertarians might not agree with: public whippings, executions, and restitution, depending on the crime. Prison should be abolished for a few reasons: it’s cruel, it’s costly, it’s actively harmful, and the alternatives are more useful.

1) It’s cruel:

Prison is unnecessarily cruel, yet everybody seems to accept it as normal, while thinking its alternative as cruel. Why is locking someone in a hole with the scum of society somehow less cruel than a few moments of pain. If you were given the choice between 20 lashes spread over 5 days or 3 years in prison, which would you choose?

Obviously, the former. Everybody I’ve asked would choose the former. I’m sure if you even gave just criminals the option, the vast majority of them would choose whipping.

If everbody would choose whipping then that then why is whipping considered cruel while prison is not? It makes no logical sense.

(It does make societal sense though. We do it for the same reason we send old people to die in old folks homes and hospitals: decadence. We have become so soft we hate to see pain and death in the open, so rather than accept that, we inflict greater cruelty on criminals [and old folks] by locking them away where we don’t have to see them.)

2)  It’s costly:

It costs $20-50k per year to house a criminal in a prison. A bullet costs a buck or less. A bullwhip costs a few hundred dollars. A person to execute the punishment will probably cost under $50/hour. We could save a lot of money by eliminating prison. Restitution pays for itself.

Now, the standard argument is that death row inmates cost a lot to execute, but that is only because of the insane legal process involved in executing someone and holding them in prison until they are executed. If we streamline the process, the cost would not be so insanely high.

3) It’s actively harmful:

Prison is actively harmful in three main ways. First, it separates children from their fathers and destroys families. A man in prison is not raising his children; his kids are being supported the state and single moms. This is not good for children, it’s not good for families, and it’s not good for the state.

Second, it separates a man from his community. Instead of being able to get a job, learn a skill, or otherwise doing something that would help him become a productive member of society, he is forced into prison where he becomes a parasite for years. Then, when he gets free form prison, he has become so used to the prison lifestyle that he can no longer function productively in the real world.

Third, it turns minor criminals into major criminals. Prison takes minor criminals and/or misguided youths, who with a bit of guidance or stern correction could be set right, and forces them into spending months or years interacting with nobody other than other criminals. This turns minor problems into major ones.

4) The alternatives are better:

The immediate objection to eliminating prisons is ‘how do we keep criminals from law-abiding citizens?’ The answer is execute them.

If an individual is so anti-social that society can find no better use for him than to store him in a warehouse to keep him from being around other people, he should be executed. It is of no benefit to society to keep a useless criminal alive in prison for years and I don’t see how keeping someone hopelessly caged for his whole life in conditions worse than we treat zoo animals is less cruel than a quick death after a good meal and an opportunity for repentance to save his immortal soul.

So, for perpetual criminals and the fully evil, execution is the superior alternative to a life of caged parasitism.

For those criminals who commit lesser violent crimes whipping is the preferable alternative (possibly castration for sexual crimes). It is at once less cruel and less destructive, yet also more of a deterrent. While everybody knows abstractly prison is bad, the full scope of imprisonment is somewhat abstract and not all that easy to grok. On the other hand, a whipping is real and visceral, it is easy to picture and the pain of it is easy to imagine. The sight of a public whipping would be a much stronger deterrent than knowing bad guys are locked up somewhere away from here.

As for the petty criminals and property criminals restitution is easily a better alternative. Make criminals pay monetary damages for monetary and petty crimes. In the case where they cannot afford to, garnish wages over time until the debt is paid. If they are unwilling to find productive work, put them into forced labour until their debt is paid.

This is better for a number of reasons: First, it avoids the problem of prison making petty criminals into greater criminals. Second, it keeps a man with his family and his community. Third, it helps, or forces, a man to become a productive member of the community. Through forced labour, he’s forced to contribute to society and forced to learn a useful skill of some sort.

For the above reasons, I think that any wise society would end the wasteful, inhuman, and cruel prison system and institute a humane, human system of execution, public whippings, and restitution.

Abolish prisons now.

Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie

As of my writing this the Google news search of Charlie Hebdo shooting nets “About 21,700,000 results“. Rotherham abuse nets “About 27,800 results“. Rotherham rapeAbout 9,520 results“. The latter story has had four months for stories to be written, the former a couple days.

Here we can see the West’s priorities: a dozen left-wing journalists get killed by the same people they fought so hard to import and it is an international crisis that everyone must care about. 1400 innocent children get raped by those same imports and nobody gives a shit.

You should have been angry months ago.

Anyway, here’s my opinion on Charlie Hebdo: they got what they deserved  the natural consequences of their pro-immigration beliefs (Ed: Ill-phrased and added a clarification) and I’m not going to shed a tear. May God grant them mercy in the next life.

Charlie Hebdo was a vile left-wing rag that regularly engaged in anti-Christian blasphemy. They are not ‘us‘. The Muslims aren’t us, but neither are Charlie Hebdo. If our enemies want to start killing each other, why should we involve ourselves? Let them take each other out.

I do have some sympathy for free speech and I might be sympathetic if Charlie Hebdo was staunch ideological pro-free speech organization but like most left-wingers Charlie are very selective in their desire for free speech. From Charlie Hebdo’s wiki:

In 2008, controversy broke over a column by veteran cartoonist Siné which led to accusations of antisemitism and Siné’s sacking by Val. Siné sued the newspaper for unfair dismissal and Charlie Hebdo was sentenced to pay him €90,000 in damages. Siné launched a rival paper called Siné Hebdo which later became Siné Mensuel. Charlie Hebdo launched its Internet site, after years of reluctance from Val.

Charlie gutlessly sacked a cartoonist for violating a more-untouchable taboo. I guess they fear Jews more than Muslims. They are not pro-free speech, they are simply anti-religion. Why should I, or any religious person, support them in this?

To add is this:

On 26 April 1996 François Cavanna, Stéphane Charbonnier and Philippe Val filed 173,704 signatures, obtained in 8 months, with the aim of banning the political party Front National, since it would have contravened the articles 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

The people at Charlie loved free speech and free assembly so much, they literally tried to ban a political party* and silence 15% of the population. (I wonder if they would/will reconsider their dislike of FN now?)

There is no reason to support Charlie. All this is is a left-wing organization, a supporter of diversity, receiving the natural consequences of diversity. If you invite savages into your country, do not be surprised when savagery results. Mourn not for those who helped engineer the invasion, but for those innocents who suffer due to it.

****

* Mike Anissimov indicated on Twitter that it may have been a joke (as did another rude person), but I haven’t been able to find a source for that. Wikipedia and the article wikipedia sources seem to be playing it straight (‘pilon’, translated ‘drumstick’ at the end, also means to pulp a book). Other sources than wiki seem to take it seriously as well. The translations of a random set of these forum members seem to take the attempted ban seriously. Now, I can’t read French very well, so I would miss any subtleties to these stories that would indicate humour and this story is from two decades ago, before the internet went mainstream, so I am having a hard time finding much. It’s possible that this is a joke, but 173k signatures is a long way to go for a joke, and there was an official inquiry into banning FN that followed soon after. I’m accepting it as legitimate until such someone shows otherwise.

The Law is a Death Threat

VD linked to a post by law professor Stephen Carter that makes a point that can not be made enough, so I’m going to reiterate it here:

That’s too bad. Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.

The government exists solely to force people to do something they wouldn’t do otherwise. No matter what the government is doing: public health care, economic redistribution, taxation, fighting obesity, etc., it is doing so by force. At the very least, they have forcibly taken taxes from the citizenry to pay for whatever activity they are doing.

Every law is a threat of violence: Do (or don’t do) this or we will sic the police on you.

The police’s sole purpose is violence, they exist solely to enforce the law through the use of the threat of violence and, failing that, violence.

But even further than that every law is at heart a death threat: Do (or don’t do) this or we kill you.

Don’t believe me, consider the one thing every government needs simply to exist taxation.

Pay your taxes or the IRS will fine (or jail) you. If you refuse to pay the fines, they send police to take you to jail. If you refuse to go to jail, the police will threaten you or forcibly move you to jail. If you do not bow to their threats or rseist them forcibly moving you, they will shoot you. If you resist being shot, they will shoot you until you are dead.

If we remove all the intermediary bureaucracy, the law is: pay your taxes or we will shoot you until you are dead.

Smaller laws and regulations hide this behind layers of bureaucracy. You might have to deal with the Department of Administrative Affairs, then the DAA’s enforcement arm, then the courts, then the Department of Justice, all before finally meeting the police, but if you refuse the law long enough, eventually the police will be there (if they’re don’t eventually arrive, then you simply don’t have to obey, but anarcho-tyranny is another topic for another time).

The police are the eventual enforcement mechanism of any law or regulation, however many layers government may use to muddy the waters, and the police’s job is, at base, to kill you if you don’t obey. Again, the police’s job is muddied as are society is soft and unable to deal with reality, but everything the police do, the Miranda Rights, the “please come with us”, the “do you mind answering a few questions”, the handcuffs, the tasers, the “stop or I’ll shoot”, all of it, is predicated on: if you don’t obey, we will kill you.

Most people in the West abide by the law and so they never go farther than a layer or two into the bureaucratic swamp; even most criminals generally obey the police before it becomes necessary for the police to kill them, so this reality is obscured by common social delusion. This delusion is how leftists can always cry for more laws but whine when the police enforce the laws on the likes of Michael Brown or Erik Garner.

Now, just because every law is a death threat and the police’s job is to kill you if you don’t obey, doesn’t make the law necessarily evil. Sometimes death threats and killing are justified. If someone was trying to rape your daughter, “stop or I’ll kill you” is justified, as is following through on the threat if necessary. Arguably, it’s the only just course of action. So, by calling the law a death threat and saying the police’s job is to kill is no indictment against the law or the police, it is simply a recognition of reality.

This reality is important to remember whenever we theorize on politics or call for more laws: more laws means more death threats and more reasons for the police to kill. It is also important to remember when someone gets themselves shot by the police: the police exist to kill, that is their job.

So remember for all political philosophy or law-making:

The government’s sole purpose is violence and every law is a death threat. Unless you are willing to kill for something no law should be made over it.

A Winning Conservative Strategy

I had a couple Twitter conversations on how the GOP can significantly cripple the Democratics and gain some actual permanent wins. One single PAC spent $142 million on Romney and received nothing to show for it in the end. With that much money I could signficantly cripple the Dems and win the next decade or two for the Republicans.

Being a reactionary monarchist, I generally avoid partisan politics here, but I thought this would be an enjoyable intellectual exercise.

Since I’m in a generous mood, I’ve decided to share the basic strategy for the GOP to steal and use (or more likely ignore) however they want, but first a little groundwork.

****

The most interesting fact about American politics is how the Republicans totally dominate all levels of violence, yet are always in a perpetual state of losing. The military is primarily Republican, the police are more split but, at least in terms of front-line workers, are generally Republican, and the NRA, while officially non-partisan, is primarily composed of Republicans. The vast majority of people who own and can use a gun are conservative, yet, in the long run, conservatives always lose to their weaker, unarmed brethren.

It is baffling until you realize it is because conservatives refuse to play by the rules the progressives have set. Democrats can steal bags of votes, implement gang-run politics, destroy crimethinker’s careers, and stage shit-ins (among many other things) with impunity and the Republicans refuse to respond with anything worse than requiring ID to vote (and then getting called evil when doing so).

****

First, some theory. In “To Win a Nuclear War” Michio Kaku outlined the concept of ‘escalation dominance’.

Escalation dominance essentially means the actor controlling the highest level of violence (in the book’s case, nuclear weapons) can control all lower levels of violence by threatening to escalate the conflict to a higher level of violence. By controlling the tempo and threat of escalation, this actor can steer a conflict in such ways as to win lower level conflicts even in areas where he may be weaker.

As I stated above, the military, the police, and the NRA are conservative institutions. Conservatives, and thereby the Republican party, control the highest level of violence in American political disputes.

Using this, the Republicans should be able to control the escalation and tempo of lower-violence political conflicts.

****

Note: This does not mean Republicans should start shooting Democrats. The primary point of escalation dominance is to control the lower levels of violence so you don’t have to escalate.

The primary reason for controlling nuclear weapons is not to use nuclear weapons. Controlling lower levels of violence without having to resort to using nuclear weapons through the implied threat of nuclear escalation is the purpose of nuclear weapons.

Controlling the highest level of violence in American politics means that Conservative can control the tempo of lower-violence political conflicts (voting, law-making, regulation enforcement, etc.) and control the escalation of political violence (ie: voting to voter fraud; debate to ideological firings) through the implied threat of further escalation (you witch hunt me and take my job, I witch hunt you and take your job and reputation; you escalate to assault, I escalate to shooting).

I repeat: I am not advocating shooting liberals or doing anything illegal. My strategy does not include physical violence or criminality. I am simply explaining a concept that will under-gird the strategy.

Also, for the purposes of this post any political act, whether it’s voting, protesting, debate, law-making, etc., will be considered a form of violence.

****

Conservatives already have implied a willingness to escalate. “Cold dead hands” is pretty clear, the occasional fringe rant by people like Alex Jones shows that conservatives can be pushed too far, and liberals still bring up McVeigh and the abortion shootings from the 90’s.

So, the base has created a climate where the implication of escalation is clear. Republicans need to use this implied threat to control lower levels of violence so violence does not escalate, but they don’t.

Despite controlling the highest level of violence, Republicans are allowing the Democrats to set the tempo of escalation. In fact, Republicans are allowing the Democrats to escalate while never responding in kind.

This is why they lose. This is why they always lose.

If they want to win they need to match the Democrats escalation, then control the further tempo of escalation.

****

Enough groundwork, now we get to the real stuff. Let’s say I had the $142-million Restore Our Future wasted on Romney or the $54-million American Crossroads used opposing Democrats. $142M over four years is $35.5M each year. Here’s how I’d spend $35M.

Create an information network. $3M*

Instead of wasting money on ads, support the dissemination over the internet. You can reach more people through FB than through some network cable slot. Create a network of cross-linking quasi-official aggregators of content and a quasi-official Republican news source.There are tons of young ideologues willing to do the Republicans propaganda grunt work for them for peanuts. Create a small fund to pay some of the best of them, say $25k each, to do it full-time. Create a small emergency fund for unpaid amateurs (your computer busted and you need a new one, here’s $1000, that kind of thing.) This could all be done for less than $1M. Easy enough.

Create an investigation network. $5M

Create a small fund (say $500k) that the aforementioned bloggers (or just regular Joes) can apply to have expenses paid for doing investigative work on a potential anti-leftist/Democrat lead.

Next, hire a couple dozen ideologically conservative reporters at $50k a piece (plus investigative expenses)  and have their sole job to dig up and publish dirt on Democrats, Democrat supproters, liberals, liberal organizations, and the like. Have them work in concert with aforementioned information network.

Next hire a few dozen private investigators. Dedicate them to uncovering the personal information and secrets of leftists. Everybody has secrets they don’t want others to know; find it if possible. Do they cheat on their spouses or their taxes, do they look at weird or illegal pornography, any “emberassing” photographs or incidents in their past, any criminal actions in the past, etc. Have them find it.

Create a quasi-official Enemies List $200k

Create and maintain a database site that’s a catalogue of the the personal information of every remotely public Democrat, liberal, or anti-Republican person or organization. Keep it inside the realms legality of privacy laws, but absolutely no more than that. If it would give more latitude make it a private operation with no official ties to the party. It would include pictures, phone numbers, addresses, family, any wrongdoing or humiliating things from their past, etc.

Publish all the personal/organizational information gained from the investigation network on this list.

Create a legal war team. $20M

The leftists are engaging in lawfare, hit back but harder and more organized. Create two Republican legal firms (make them legally independent if need be).

Have one whose sole responsibility is defending any conservative/Republican who’s in trouble due to their politics (such as any troubles that may happen while enacting this plan). Make this firm small but top quality. Defend your own with the best.

Have a second firm that’s large, sacrifice on quality. Have this team find and bring to court any actionable lawsuits against Democrats, leftists, left-wing organizations, leftists’ businesses, etc. The purpose here is not to win, it is to use the courts as methods of persecution and to drag court cases out. Remember, in lawfare the trial is the punishment and you are looking to punish these people/organizations for being leftists. These cases can be anything; any kind of civil suit that can be concocted to be actionable.

Also, create a fund for paying the legal fees for cases that are lost and avoid cases that would get summarily thrown out.

Create a street team. $2M

As Kate always says, failing to show up for a riot is a failed conservative policy. Hire a bunch of young conservative/Republicans (at low wages) as organizers. Anytime leftists protest, the hired organizers would create a counter-protest. They would then organize their own protests. Do what leftists have learned; don’t protest in public streets, target. Is there a particular individual, protest in front of his house/place of employment for a week; is there an organization, protest outside the organization during the day, outside the home of the CEO/Director/Manager during the evenings. Remember, the leftists made the personal political.

Make sure to give clear instructions to avoid illegal actions and avoid stepping frmo “free speech” into “”harassment”.

Create a phone/e-mail team. $2M

Hire a few coordinators for different ideological areas to create a lists of volunteers. Every time it becomes necessary, have the coordinators coordinate a phone team. Have the each volunteer phone a leftist being targeted once a week (make the call polite: “Hi, sir, I would like to respectfully disagree with you or your organization’s policy on), but have enough volunteers that the person is getting a phone call every hour for the entire week. Keep this up for a few weeks. You are not phoning the PR people, you are not phoning secretaries, you are phoning these people directly. Get their numbers from above. Then have the volunteers phone their boss, the organization they volunteer with, etc. to register their displeasure.

Also, if there’s a leftist being targeted, have everybody e-mail bomb them and where they work registering displeasure.

Create an employment network. $300k

Spend a few hundred thousand to hire a few guys whose sole job is to help Republicans/conservatives who lose their jobs due to their ideology find new ones. One advantage the left has is that a leftist who does something leftist and stupid can always find employment with some leftist organization. Many conservatives don’t have that, so they are forced to curtail their political activities or hide behind screennames. All these guys have to do is find some Republican employers to participate, then link cosnervatives in need to them.

Hire a coordination office. $1M

Hire a coordinator to coordinator, and if necessary some office staff, to coordinate all these different teams.

Ad Hoc. $2M

A small fund for the coordinator to take advantage of any unforeseen opportunities that may present themselves.

With more, simply do all this, but bigger.

****

With everything in place, have the coordinator run ruthless personal campaign after ruthless personal campaign.

Find a leftist and destroy him/her on a personal level. Targets can include actual elected officials, bureaucrats abusing their positions for partisan reasons (ie. the IRS), leftist bloggers, leftist media figures, leftist academics, leftist activists, leftist businesses, leftists NGO’s and non-profits.

The investigation network will find out everything they can about it, they will pass it to the information network who will distribute it, and it will be logged in the enemies list. If the pesron has done anything actionable, the legal war team will pounce on it. The street and phone team will protest in their own manners.

You could have dozens of these campaigns running at once.

For an example of how it could look, let’s go back to John Cook, who published the names of every gun owner in New York and let’s pretend this network is in place.

The investigation network would find his address, his personal phone number, pictures of his home and kids, his porn habits, his marriage therapy sessions, whatever they legally could find. The information network would distribute this widely. A dossier of him and his family would be written up on the enemies list. So, now everything about him is freely available on the internet.

The legal war team would find whatever arcane law or “injured” they could to make a civil action of this. They’d bring John to court personally and tie him up in months of legal battles. Every hour of every day for weeks, both him and his wife would receive a polite phone call from a different person expressing polite disapproval; their personal inboxes would load with polite e-mail expressing disapproval. His boss at Gawker would be receiving continual calls and e-mails to fire him.

A small group of (non-harassing) protesters would show up on the sidewalk outside his house in the morning as his children are leaving for school and in the evening as they are getting home from school, having dinner, going to bed. They’d be in front of his place of work during the day.

After a month of that peaceful, legal attack, do you think anybody would be stupid enough to try to publish gun owners name’s again. Even after the rather weak, uncoordinated response to John the alst time no one has since published another gun owners list. Now repeat that for every offending leftist, every offending organization, and the occasional random leftist, how long until the public action of the leftists can’t sustain itself anymore.

Without the constant leftist campaigns and organizations, the electoral support of leftists begins to whither over time. A few elections down the road, Republicans are consistently winning and getting their agenda through because most leftists are too cowed to fight back.

****

Now, if you find this distasteful, remember, leftists are already doing this. They already fully agree that this is kind of personal action is acceptable practice. They’ve done it many times, and will continue to do it. The recent dust-up at Mozilla makes that clear. So, it is either respond in kind or lose.

Right now, the leftists have escalated to a higher level of political violence than the Republicans; the Republicans need to match it and escalate a step further.

****

The obvious question then becomes, why won’t the leftists/Democrats organize, then escalate further?

They will, to which the Republicans respond by escalating again.

This is where we get to escalation dominance.

At some point of escalation, the left will be to afraid to escalate further, because the right controls the highest level of violence.

While the reaction to the Gawker story wasn’t enough to do more than irritate John Cook, a similar reaction to a similar piece in for a newspaper, resulted in the paper hiring armed guards.

Once the escalation has been pushed high enough, the left will blink at the implied threat of physical violence and then perhaps deescalation can occur.

****

That’s the basic outline for a long-term win for the GOP.

If any higher placed GOP flak with the funds would like to win, win hard, and win permanently rather than throw massive amounts of money down the RINO-hole, I am willing to sell my services. I will gladly be hired to write up a detailed plan and I would be happy to be hired to implement it (for appropriate compensation of course). I might not believe in democracy, but Democrat tears are their own reward.

Also, my offer of selling my services applies to other country’s conservative parties. I do live in Canada after all.

Think about it GOP operative or rich conservative donor reading this. You can hire me for peanuts (relatively speaking) and win, or you can continue to throw millions upon millions at candidates that always seem to let the country continue left.

****

For this strategy, I’ve stayed within the realm of legality.

Now the Democrats have already escalated into illegality through ballot-stuffing, voter fraud, voter intimidation, and gang politics. If certain GOP operatives were willing to escalate into the realm of illegality the possibilities would be near endless.

I am not going to give any advice on illegality and will not condone or encourage illegal actions, but I would note I do love intellectual challenges and might be willing to engage in hypotheticals for a hefty payment.

****

*All numbers are very quick and rough estimates. I’d need to be paid more than nothing for greater accuracy.