Riccosuave

The goal needs to be a total social and economic embargo. Completely exclude them from our lives in any way possible. We are now in an existential war for the future of liberal society. Let's hope it stays mostly ideological, but I'm not holding my breath.

NO APPROACH IS GOING TO WORK.

You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into in the first place. If you think you are going to out-logic any of these people into changing their minds you don't actually understand the way fascist ideology grows & becomes entrenched within a population. Your thought process that you can change their minds by treating them as intelligent members of a well-functioning social order is such okie-doke ass pick-me behavior you should be embarrassed you even attempted to float it. That only serves to further reinforce the legitimacy of their ideas in their own minds. Grow the fuck up.

There are plenty of perfectly intelligent people that voted for trump.

No, there aren't. The truly intelligent people who support Donald Trump are in the Machiavellian evil camp. They are the herding dogs that use their understanding of the weaknesses of human psychology to manipulate the rest of the stupid, unwashed masses who blindly follow Donald Trump because of their in-group dynamics.

The intelligent epicenter makes up an extremely small margin of hyper-wealthy (and/or) moral Nihilists who's goal is to collapse U.S. hegemony and by-proxy Western society so they can economically enslave the remaining remnants of the human race with discretionary economic power.

So, no, it is not "plenty". It is an incredibly small subset of individuals who actually understand what is going on, and are using it to their direct advantage.

You have just described how every evangelical infantalizes "God's" will. These are learned psychological frameworks that are being copy pasted between different control vectors at will at this point.

I am serious when I say there is no conceivable way to deprogram and reprogram the vast majority of them. The goal needs to be a total social and economic embargo. Completely exclude them from our lives in any way possible.

These words are violence.

That would require me to speak to them, which is something I refuse to do at this point. I'm only interested in communicating with people IRL who wish to be a part of the socio-cultural resistance.

Sick burn 🔥

I see now where the confusion lies I believe. It seems to me that you think I am arguing IN FAVOR of moving to the middle. I am absolutely, unequivocally, and under no circumstances in support of that strategy. What I am arguing is that when you have a candidate with no true ideological convictions, and that does not believe in the radical reorientation of the Democratic party towards true economic populism then the only option you are left with is pandering to the middle. I agree it has been a complete and total failure, and that it was always doomed to fail in the long run even if it miraculously worked in the short term (2020). I knew it was going to be a failed strategy in 2016, I knew it was going to lead to future failure after 2020, and that was proven to be true again in 2024. I fucking agree with you.

I don’t understand why you think working with them, compromising with them when they do nothing but give empty promises and bullshit excuses, is somehow going to magically turn the party left because of one cult-like candidate (who we had, btw, Bernie, the DNC shit all over him, remember) who “centralizes power.”

This is not what I am suggesting at all. I want zero compromise with the right, ever. I want absolute, uncompromising, ideological militance from the left and its leadership. Bernie was never going to provide that. While I absolutely believe in the genuine nature of his beliefs, and appreciate what he did to wake up so much of the Millennial generation in this country, he ultimately was too old and lacked the courage of his convictions.

What we need is new leadership who is willing, ready, and able to build a political apparatus that is capable of organizing and maintaining the advantages that come along with engaging in structural violence when necessary. That means economically embargoing conservative states, and corporations. It means systematically organizing and overtaking local governments in strategically advantageous districts. It means building organizations that allow people to escape regressive social, familial, religious, or economic situations that are keeping them trapped and unproductive to the cause. It means encouraging those people to cut off social access to anyone that does not share in their ideological convictions. No more fucking around. I want a legitimate push toward radicalizing the population, and showing people how to effectively use their numbers to their advantage.

For some reason you thought I was arguing for centrism, when what I am really arguing for is centralized, organized, strategic revolution. Hopefully that clears things up.

I'm fine with tacking to the left.

Until you have someone who is willing to threaten to rally the same kind of structural violence that Donald Trump is capable of in opposition, and actually make good on it, then moving to the middle is the only logical option.

Which fucking part of that did you not understand?

Moving to the left is good, and desirable. If you want to do that effectively you need the advantage of structural violence that is provided by the organized hierarchical structure of a serious political party.

So, we need a candidate who is willing to forcibly restructure the Democratic party in the way Trump did to the Republican party. Simply just wanting a candidate to support more left wing policies is not enough. They must centralize support for those populist positions.

Did you somehow miss, or just conveniently ignore the first part of my comment where I literally called for a revolutionary candidate who was willing to restructure the face of the left by whatever means necessary?

I don't think we are actually in disagreement at all. I agree with every single thing you just framed out in your reply. I believe were just explaining different pieces of the same premise using our own perspective as the prism.

Edit: Didn't really intend for the alliteration, but I liked it so I decided to leave it even though normally I think that is kinda cringe...

No it isn't. It is essentially statistically impossible.