[Wrathchild]

I wanna know you guys' thoughts on this. I don't like to use labels such as right or left, but in this case I will do it to simplify it.

We all know there is a big difference between the men of the Right (our kind) and the Leftist male. Leftist males are the scourge of the earth, weaklings not only phisically but also mentally. They, along with their women allies can go arround protesting as much as they want, as long as they have the protection of the daddy state. But, if men could use violence against them, then the leftists would be utterly destroyed in the field. With no protection, there is nothing they can do. Their personalities are not prepared for this, neither their bodies.

Would men win the cultural war if it came to civil war? I believe yes, because the army and police forces are mostly composed of real men as well, who would rather join us and fight against the leftists than confront the ones who share their own personal values. I think it depends on who the armed forces would support, if they chose to be loyal to the left or true to their values.

What do you think about this? If things get violent will we win? Or will we be crushed forever?

[RexImperator]

I think it depends how far a Fabian socialist takeover has progressed, since eventually they can capture the apparatus of the state. Look at Western Europe.

[Wrathchild]

(03-12-2016 07:04 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

I think it depends how far a Fabian socialist takeover has progressed, since eventually they can capture the apparatus of the state. Look at Western Europe.

Is the military under their control? Would it fight its own people in case of insurrection?

[RatInTheWoods]

(03-12-2016 06:08 PM)Wrathchild Wrote:  

I think it depends on who the armed forces would support, if they chose to be loyal to the left or true to their values.

They will do the bidding of their masters, as always.

[Phoenix]

They've done it before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution

That said, I've noticed a correlation of people serving in the military being right-wing, and academics being left-wing.

(03-12-2016 08:18 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(03-12-2016 06:08 PM)Wrathchild Wrote:  

I think it depends on who the armed forces would support, if they chose to be loyal to the left or true to their values.

They will do the bidding of their masters, as always.

Not always.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_R...u.27s_fall

[TooFineAPoint]

The left would win, yes.

Reference the American War Of Southern Independence, where the North threw piles of bodies at the South and eventually overcame them.

[Sherman]

When the communists tried to take over Germany, the Freikorps won.

[BIG BOSS]

I wouldn't count on the military for being on the rights side. What people in the military believe in, above all, is the military. These are the same people who say "McCain > Trump." The left would likely win because they have the state and all that the state entails, especially the media. Not to mention that so much of the right has become complacent (Cruz types).

[temsike]

Historically left usually beats right. E.g. USA Civil War. WW1. WW2. Vietnam War.

[The Beast1]

It's never a left vs right paradigm. It's globalists versus nationalists. Every one of those engagements temsike posted are more effectively described using the terms I outlined.

[Guriko]

(03-14-2016 07:21 PM)temsike Wrote:  

Historically left usually beats right. E.g. USA Civil War. WW1. WW2. Vietnam War.

It is painful to admit - but your words ring true.

But it is funny - now that I've thought about it a little I've come to realize that even though the 'left' beats the 'right' on a frequent if not consistent basis they always collapse within themselves in the end.

The analogy I'll use next is not (yet) well thought out but it kind of stuck with me. It's a bit like emotion vs. rationality. Leftists usually appeal to emotion while the right to rationality when it comes to fights. We've seen the outcomes of who prevails.

But if one becomes dependent on his emotions and dedicates his whole life to pleasing them then he treads on a path to ruin.

Which is what I am seeing right now with the refugee crisis, LGBT, equality... Just because it feels right doesn't mean it IS right.

Restraint and discipline are needed to improve. We are not seeing that. And as such we stagnate if not move backwards.

[Phoenix]

(03-15-2016 06:25 AM)Guriko Wrote:  

But it is funny - now that I've thought about it a little I've come to realize that even though the 'left' beats the 'right' on a frequent if not consistent basis they always collapse within themselves in the end.

I wouldn't go that far, Pinochet and Franco are relatively recent examples of leftism being forcibly defeated.

[Wrathchild]

(03-14-2016 07:21 PM)temsike Wrote:  

Historically left usually beats right. E.g. USA Civil War. WW1. WW2. Vietnam War.

Come on. Though the more left-drawn have won in these cases, they were far from being real leftists. They were still real men who fought for king and country or other right wing ideals.

What we are dealing now are males with no sense of masculinity, nothing to fight for and weaklings in every aspect of their lives. They can not possibly oppose us unless the military takes their side.

Also, about the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese may have been Marxists in ideology, but they were very much Right Wing in their mindset, unlike the USA's people, who were namely right wing but were left wing in their mindset. That, along with the incapacity of the US to invade NV without provoking the USSR was the reason the USA "lost" that war.

[CodyB]

If "Left" and "Right" engages in an open fight it doesn't matter who wins as it will result in the same outcome.

The real enemy of the world are entities that control the world's economies by using their sheer size as leverage to gain more sheer size. These entities fund both 'right and left' sides. They will have their regardless of the ideology at play if people still apply the antiquated ideologies of Liberalism vs Conservatism.

This is especially true in America and Australia.

[Guriko]

(03-15-2016 10:19 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 06:25 AM)Guriko Wrote:  

But it is funny - now that I've thought about it a little I've come to realize that even though the 'left' beats the 'right' on a frequent if not consistent basis they always collapse within themselves in the end.

I wouldn't go that far, Pinochet and Franco are relatively recent examples of leftism being forcibly defeated.

I agree with you 100% Phoenix. And that is the key isn't it? If the right, or many of us who do not identify as right per old paradigms, but nonetheless fight the left wish to win then we must abandon the notion of fair play, civility, defensive maneuvering and the like. The left does not operate on the same level. They are underhanded cowards with holier than though lip service.

What we need is, especially right now, strength, brutality and high raw energy. Like a certain someone who is dominating the Politics and War board, if not the whole forum.

Now you've reminded me that I know jack shit about Franco or Pinochet. I'll have to read up upon them. I'm curious to know if their respective countries were better or worse under their rule.

[Guriko]

(03-16-2016 12:19 AM)CodyB Wrote:  

If "Left" and "Right" engages in an open fight it doesn't matter who wins as it will result in the same outcome.

The real enemy of the world are entities that control the world's economies by using their sheer size as leverage to gain more sheer size. These entities fund both 'right and left' sides. They will have their regardless of the ideology at play if people still apply the antiquated ideologies of Liberalism vs Conservatism.

This is especially true in America and Australia.

I agree. I am also guilty about the trite 'left vs. right' belief. I'll abandon that, for the forum has shown that such labels do not matter in the grand scheme of things.

What matters is whom we fight for. It is truly the case, as some have already pointed out, about fighting for the soul of the countries and countrymen that gave us birth, culture and way of thinking against the workers who advocate for conglomerate mass of a unified world order which is under control via unelected bodies by string controlled puppets whose masters decide about the fate of millions if not billions but are never accosted for their actions.

Scary thought, for sure. But at least now I know who my enemy is.

[El Chinito loco]

(03-14-2016 07:21 PM)temsike Wrote:  

Historically left usually beats right. E.g. USA Civil War. WW1. WW2. Vietnam War.

You're missing the most important facet of leftist insurrection during those times. It was a mobilization of salt of the earth rural people with fighting skills.

The left in the U.S. is mostly comprised of lame white collar urbanites, millenials, and hoodlings who have not done any serious manual labor aside from robbing liquor stores or whatever.

These are not the leftists that can actually mount a real revolution of any type through force. The best they can hope for is to bleed the system, flip the demographics in their favor, and push for more systemic corruption in government with identity politics candidates.

[zombiejimmorrison]

Communism of the old kind has lost its teeth, thanks to capitalism. They don't fight in the open with weapons, they fight with laws and shaming. Its become an ideology calling itself socialism and trying its hardest to forget and cover up the atrocities of the past.

I'd say the right could beat the left in America thanks to the constitution but everywhere else, they might actually win because most governments are into socialism and have banned guns.

[dispenser]

(03-14-2016 07:21 PM)temsike Wrote:  

Historically left usually beats right. E.g. USA Civil War. WW1. WW2. Vietnam War.

Thin stuff.
WW1 was not about right versus left.
And considering that the US allied with a monster like Stalin in WW2, and had their own little holocaust in two Japanese cities, I don't think we can really pretend it was about pure-hearted boyscout idealism.
The Vietnam war was a minor war in a minor country, and leftism has basically rotted away there by now.

You may or may not be a leftist, but that's a leftist meme. It's the reason they crow about it being "the current year!!!"
It's also why Trump is so frightening to them. He's about to undo a good two decades of subversion, more if we're lucky.

[Leonard D Neubache]

In terms of who would actually drop everything and go to battle, there's only a very slim minority on each side of the fence. The vast majority of globalists and nationalists in the middle consider that their involvement begins and ends at the voting booth and the protest march.

If push came to shove I suspect the left, having control of the media and nearly all of the state apparatus would do their best to give the impression that there was no war at all, but a series of terror attacks being committed by reactionary racists. They would do their best to keep the military largely clear of it but there would be a lot of foreign mercenaries being employed to do their dirty work (you can't trust the local military to pull the trigger on their own countrymen, but a foreigner will be far less squeamish).

Regardless of the state propaganda the war would be quite apparent as being a gigantic elephant in the room for most people, but the more expansive the lie, the harder it is to denounce it. Consider it from the perspective of the average schmuck. You're treading water in bad economy or you're living on a state pension (or barely adequate retirement fund). You know there's a war going on but you have no idea the where/why/how or who is fighting it precisely. Every story on the news indicates that the racist rebels are going to be crushed any day now. And even if you wanted to fight, what would you do? Where would you go?

In other words, the vast majority of citizens are couch potatoes who won't be at the front line when things kick off and wont be in a hurry to get there after it does. This will likely lead to a protracted fight that less resembles the Civil war of Old Abe and more resembles the ugly kind of endless insurgencies that exist in Afghanistan and Western Africa.

Or I may be completely wrong. Trump has really smashed all the crystal balls in the region.

[The Black Knight]

(03-15-2016 03:52 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

It's never a left vs right paradigm. It's globalists versus nationalists. Every one of those engagements temsike posted are more effectively described using the terms I outlined.

For the sake of the argument, I will use the globalist vs nationalists paradigm since that is more likely to be the main ideological difference between two sides in the near future. That or fascists/authoritarians vs freedom types.

In either case:

In a physical or small group hand to hand/firearms fight, I would bet on the nationalist/freedom types. More likely to be military/ex-military, have combat experience, know how to fight effectively as a unit, and have weapons training. Generally in better physical condition as well; look at the people who show up at a Bernie vs Trump rally to see what I mean.

But on a large scale, it would be a toss-up. Cyber/tech warfare (ex: jamming/tapping cell phones/data collection/drones/bombs, etc), stuff that can do a lot of damage with little/no direct physical confrontation, is predominately the domain of silicon valley types.... and I don't need to tell you about a lot of those peoples allegiances and political leanings. Imagine if the intellectual capabilities of those people was re-directed from stupid shit like cell phones and apps and towards warfare technology instead.

Ultimately, I would still bet on the freedom/nationalist types in this day and age if talking about the US because they have a fighter mentality on average. Your typical fascists/globalist/authoritarian is more obsessed with social signaling and talking a big game but they are all bark and no bite for the most part. They typically only fight when in overwhelming large groups and with the safety of the state protecting them (physically and legally) from counter-attacks. In a no holds bar match such a a civil war, they have little to fight with.