Maybe We Want Things to Get Even Worse

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,545
Maybe We Want Things to Get Even Worse

https://townhall.com/columnists/kur...-worse-n2612858?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky1

Kurt Schlichter Sep 12, 2022 12:01 AM

Could it be better for freedom if things in America got even worse? More economic hardship, increased crime, further humiliations of America at the hands of seventh century savages – you know, business usual under President Gumby. Should we patriots try to save these idiots from themselves and give them an out, or let the natural consequences of their failures build into a critical mass that brings on a backlash that brings us the power we need to destroy all their Marxy dreams? Perhaps we should root for our garbage ruling class to hit bottom and start digging. Actually, digging deeper – these incompetent corruptocrats are already tossing shovelfuls of dirt out of the hole.

It's a cynical strategy, but this is a cynical time. There is a school of thought that says that the way to win the kind of macro-societal conflict we are in is to allow the enemy to crash and burn, to so thoroughly fail to perform adequately by any metric that they will discredit themselves for a generation – but only for a generation, since as long as there are stupid college students and stupider academics, there will be communists. This is like a conservative version of the Cloward-Piven strategy, where the left would burden the welfare state so heavily with deadbeats, bums, and shiftless losers that the only possible response would be a massive expansion of the welfare state ending, they hope, in full socialism. We win by letting them lose and lose and lose, despite the pain we’ll feel while they do it, until they are utterly spent. If it works, okay, but if it doesn’t, would we even have an America to save?

In today’s scenario, if it all worked out, we conservatives would let the Democrats screw up so badly that people would demand actual freedom and capitalism as the cure. And it’s not a totally wacky idea. We have had monumental backlashes before. In 1980, which I remember because I am old (but not President Crusty O’Kiddieshowers old), Jimmy Carter screwed up so deeply and comprehensively that even when the American people finally picked a Democrat again 12 years later in a three-way race with a Republican liar who asked them to read his lips and a populist spoiler-elf named Ross Perot, the Democrat talked about law and order and how the Era of Big Government was over. Of course, he did not mean it; his wife was not the only one in that relationship faking it.

So, the idea is that, like a drunk waking up in a different state wearing someone else’s pants and a strange wedding ring and sporting a fresh tramp-stamp of Ernest Borgnine riding a surfboard while wearing a thong, the ruling class and enough people are going to come to, look around, and think, “Gee, time to get into a national twelve-step.” But the strategy of letting them wreck the country until the voters come crawling back to beg us to come back into power has several problems, and like many problems these derive from uncertain premises.

One such uncertain premise is that there is a bottom for the left. But why would you think that? To have a bottom – a state of despair so complete that there really is no alternative but to change direction – you have to have certain objectives. In the case of the ruling caste, the objective has to be, at some level, to provide security and prosperity for the citizens. But what evidence have you seen that this is the establishment’s objective? What makes you think that is a motivating factor at all? Our trash alleged betters are very interested in their own power and position, but not so much in your safety or prosperity. Take California – please. It’s 2022 and the pinko Dems running the place can’t even keep the power on, much less keep hobos from defecating on our lawns. If the Dems cared about us, they would look at the darkness and the squatting derelicts and think, “Well, this is not working. Time to try something that’s not stupid.” But they will never do that. They don’t care about us. We’re not the point. That’s why there is no bottom. It can get a million times worse and they will be happy as long as they are in charge.

It's the backlash that changes thing, that forces change on a sclerotic elite, not a course correction initiated by the same captains who steered us into the iceberg in the first place.

But another uncertain premise is that there will even be a backlash. Human nature would seem to dictate that people will only take so much guff for so long, but we Americans have taken a lot of guff – lockdowns, that senile idiot hectoring us, the stupid new Tolkien elf opera – and have still not gone full French Revolution on their asses. That’s does not build confidence. But then again, Virginians did vote red last year, terrifying mommy terrorists of terror did mob school boards, and Latinx Americans have said “Adios, pendejos Democraticos” in massive numbers. The November election looks good, but it’s all very genteel. So far, the backlash is more about going back than lashing, but if they keep up with nonsense like their pro-groomer agenda all bets are off.

Now, some on the left on social media, and bow-tied Conservative, Inc. sissies observing from their shame closets on pool cleaning day, will argue that this means we want things to get worse. What we want is not the issue. As of this moment, we have distinctly little ability to affect whether or not things get worse. But come November, we will have the chance.

Do Republicans, assuming they don’t screw up what should be a sure thing election – never doubt the GOP’s capacity to fail – bail Grandpa Badfinger and his party of perverts and deadbeats out by taking the political heat for stopping them? Because there will be heat – the Republicans will be tossing granny off a cliff and putting folks back in chains by cutting budgets and holding up the climate scam and stopping debt giveaways for people who got their degrees in Pronoun Studies and the like.

As tempting as it would be to just stand by and let the Dems ruin everything in the hopes that will help us save it, you don’t win by losing. We need to stop them where we can – California, you idiots, you made your waterbed and now you gotta lie in it – even though doing that is doing them a favor by saving them – and America – from themselves.
 
Another 'author' who does the left-right/good-bad analogy....

There are huge clumps of takers-consumers all bunched up together living in cities. Some of them call themselves conservative while others call themselves liberal yet only one in 10,000 can exist without the others. Group production, group-think, group living, they're tied together closer than many married couples.

The main metric dividing these people is the desire to lord over the others in their sphere and force behaviors.

Out in the country there are conservatives and liberals too but there's a difference!

The country cousins tend to believe the tenants of their affiliation but choose to try and curtail government instead of their neighbors.

So whether you're liberal or conservative the difference between country and city is vast.........To the point it's really insurmountable.

Back to wall off the cities and let 'em eat eachother.
 
So whether you're liberal or conservative the difference between country and city is vast.........To the point it's really insurmountable.

Back to wall off the cities and let 'em eat eachother.

The bigger the community, the less of a sense of community it has.
 
The country cousins tend to believe the tenants of their affiliation but choose to try and curtail government instead of their neighbors.

Imagine being surrounded like thousands of anonymous faces every day. You don't know any of them and you're never sure which ones are threats to you. The best you can do is to "classify" people into groups and figure out how your group can be protected from their group. If you see someone in the other group as being better off than you, it's probably not because of their individual work - it's because their group is getting beneficial treatment. Remember, they are all anonymous to you. So you lock and deadbolt your door every night and ask the government to protect you from the "bad" people. Of course, government will use your fear for their own benefit, but that's the price you have to pay to have some semblance of safety living your life being surrounded by these strangers.

That's life in the cities.

In rural communities, it's kinda the opposite. You see familiar faces everywhere you go. You may not know each person, but you know their families. You generally don't perceive these people as threats since if someone got out of line, they'd have to face the shame of living amongst people who know what they did. No, in rural communities, your fears are generally concerns about outsiders. You worry about people from the government imposing their will on you or stealing your wealth. You may be concerned about foreign interests looking to ruin your way of life. You have concerns that the culture of the cities may corrupt your children (you know how attractive that culture will appear to your kids on the surface) and you work tirelessly to prevent that from happening. You stayed armed and vigilant to protect yourself and your family. Don't worry, though, government has a plan to ease your fears, too! They'll start wars in your name to protect "your interests" and they'll even ask (sometimes, tell) you to donate your children for the slaughter.

That's life in the sticks.

To the OP's topic, do we really want things to get even worse? I don't think so. I don't think there's any guarantee that things will get better after they get worse. And in the meantime, there will be lots of increased suffering. Both types of communities will call upon a government to alleviate that suffering even more and will end up further increasing the suffering on the opposite communities. I know it's attractive to think things will eventually get better, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

I do, however, like the idea of walling off the cities. Let them experience the pain they are inflicting and insulate the rest. As always, the more local you can get governance, the better for all.
 
Big Tech and Big Wall Street is widening the big tent deep into the skhrinking countryside.

Everyone knows it's not what it used to be.

NOTHING is what it USED TO BE.
 
Could it be better for freedom if things in America got even worse?

No. It would be like allowing children to destroy the house. There would never be a point where those children would say, “hey, this is a mess, let’s clean up and rebuild.” They would be happy living like animals, as long as they get their every short term whim catered to. These aren't even ordinary children. They are spoiled and power-mad. They want their way, and only their way. They have mostly gotten their way their whole lives, and the institutional Marxist brainwashing has told them their whole lives that they deserve everything they want.

And like children, they can only whine, cry, throw tantrums and demand their own way. They are not capable of taking care of things on their own. There needs to be competent adults somewhere. Otherwise it all falls apart, and all they will do is continue complaining.

There won’t be a point where it gets so bad that they will see the light. It will be more like an old cat lady in a dilapidated house with 120 stray cats.
 
No. It would be like allowing children to destroy the house. There would never be a point where those children would say, “hey, this is a mess, let’s clean up and rebuild.” They would be happy living like animals, as long as they get their every short term whim catered to. These aren't even ordinary children. They are spoiled and power-mad. They want their way, and only their way. They have mostly gotten their way their whole lives, and the institutional Marxist brainwashing has told them their whole lives that they deserve everything they want.

And like children, they can only whine, cry, throw tantrums and demand their own way. They are not capable of taking care of things on their own. There needs to be competent adults somewhere. Otherwise it all falls apart, and all they will do is continue complaining.

There won’t be a point where it gets so bad that they will see the light. It will be more like an old cat lady in a dilapidated house with 120 stray cats.

I used to think like the writer I posted in the OP.

Now I agree with you...no, it would not ever wake up the people.

Again, see Venezuela...once the wealthiest country in all of south America, vibrant cities, thriving middle class, massive reserves of natural resources...they had it all.

They voted for years of Marxism and now, literally, eat circus animals and dumpster dive for food.

And yet they still majority support Maduro the Marxist.

Those that leave invade our nation to support Marxism here.
 
I don't really care either way anymore. I just look out for myself and my family now. I take all I legally can from the government to hasten it's demise in my own little way and if it burns it burns.
 
We are already overdue for electing someone suddenly for no reason at all.
And that is what it will take to solve our problems.

But libertarians will scream and curse at all the required solutions.
 
I used to think like the writer I posted in the OP.

Now I agree with you...no, it would not ever wake up the people.

Again, see Venezuela...once the wealthiest country in all of south America, vibrant cities, thriving middle class, massive reserves of natural resources...they had it all.

They voted for years of Marxism and now, literally, eat circus animals and dumpster dive for food.

And yet they still majority support Maduro the Marxist.

Those that leave invade our nation to support Marxism here.

Exactly, if the backlash doesn't happen very soon then it never will.
 
I always go back to 'we aren't divided enough.'

The problem we have now is that there's just not enough difference between the two parties. It's like trying to do a science experiment with two variables but you've cross contaminated the samples, so your results are muddled and inconclusive.

Everyone complains that there's no difference between the two parties. And they're right, but the solution therefore is to sort them out. But if you do that, your admonished for being 'divisive' or some such. When I say sort out I'm not so much talking about the party members themselves, but the politicians. If I could kick Lindsey Graham back over to the left (where he'd be a better fit, IMO), I'd do it in a heartbeat.


69360 said:
How will that happen? Forced migration? Ethnic cleansing? There is no practical way. US is politically divided not geographically.

It's a fair point. You can't really do it without some degree of force. In the lead up to the Civil War, union sympathizers were basically told to GTFO of the southern states. I wonder how things were done in the American Revolution with the patriots and the loyalists. That was back when it took half a day to visit the next town. Now it takes a 15 minute car ride. So it isn't like you can just ignore each other because the proximity has been enhanced through technological advances.

The only way I could see it done (which would still be quite challenging) is to make people generally uncomfortable with their surroundings, so much so that they divide themselves. People can be quite hard-headed though. Consider all the California transplants moving to Florida even though they supposedly hate DeSantis and the way the state is managed. The notion that the reason Florida does so well is specifically because it isn't managed like California, rarely even enters their minds.

I recall the billboard in Texas that was protested against because it was basically a big 'UNwelcome to Texas' sign. Public pressure got them to take it down, but you can't have it both ways. You're going to have to put a foot down at some point because after a threshold gets hit, liberalism will spread like cancer. I worry about Georgia and this idiot governor we have who has been trying to attract the predominantly-liberal Hollyweird industry to our state. That's not really the crowd you want to continue growing the tumor known as the city of Atlanta and its metro region. Attract some farmers or something.
 
Last edited:
No. It would be like allowing children to destroy the house. There would never be a point where those children would say, “hey, this is a mess, let’s clean up and rebuild.”

Sadly that's what I've realized. People are just too hard-headed. If there was any hope that Californians might wake up one day, for example, it was crushed when Newsom beat Elder by a 2-1 margin in that recall election. That tells me that even in an unscheduled election they'll still come out in droves to support the status quo. And how many homeless programs is California going to enact before they say, 'hmm, maybe we should 'stop making people comfortable in their poverty'" as Ben Franklin supposedly once said, on how to get rid of poverty? They're always like, "Man, what's attracting all these homeless people?" lol Like putting food out for stray cats and then complaining because everything smells like cat piss when you walk out on your porch. Just can't quite seem to connect the dots.
 
Last edited:
But libertarians will scream and curse at all the required solutions.

Who's screaming and cursing? If hearing the very sound reasons why the "required solutions" you favor are neither required nor likely to solve a damned thing causes you such consternation, why do you hang around with libertarians?

You clearly don't persist in buzzing around, haranguing and insulting us for our benefit. That makes your implications that this is nothing but hardship for you hard to swallow.
 
Last edited:
I always go back to 'we aren't divided enough.'

The problem we have now is that there's just not enough difference between the two parties. It's like trying to do a science experiment with two variables but you've cross contaminated the samples, so your results are muddled and inconclusive.

Everyone complains that there's no difference between the two parties. And they're right, but the solution therefore is to sort them out. But if you do that, your admonished for being 'divisive' or some such. When I say sort out I'm not so much talking about the party members themselves, but the politicians. If I could kick Lindsey Graham back over to the left (where he'd be a better fit, IMO), I'd do it in a heartbeat.




It's a fair point. You can't really do it without some degree of force. In the lead up to the Civil War, union sympathizers were basically told to GTFO of the southern states. I wonder how things were done in the American Revolution with the patriots and the loyalists. That was back when it took half a day to visit the next town. Now it takes a 15 minute car ride. So it isn't like you can just ignore each other because the proximity has been enhanced through technological advances.

The only way I could see it done (which would still be quite challenging) is to make people generally uncomfortable with their surroundings, so much so that they divide themselves. People can be quite hard-headed though. Consider all the California transplants moving to Florida even though they supposedly hate DeSantis and the way the state is managed. The notion that the reason Florida does so well is specifically because it isn't managed like California, rarely even enters their minds.

I recall the billboard in Texas that was protested against because it was basically a big 'UNwelcome to Texas' sign. Public pressure got them to take it down, but you can't have it both ways. You're going to have to put a foot down at some point because after a threshold gets hit, liberalism will spread like cancer. I worry about Georgia and this idiot governor we have who has been trying to attract the predominantly-liberal Hollyweird industry to our state. That's not really the crowd you want to continue growing the tumor known as the city of Atlanta and its metro region. Attract some farmers or something.

Yep, this. Fortunately I think people are starting to get fed up with each other enough to start self-segregating.

Just gotta keep that wonderful spigot of division on full flow, and everything will work itself out :up:
 
Let it burn

DRloith.jpg
 
I always go back to 'we aren't divided enough.'

The problem we have now is that there's just not enough difference between the two parties. It's like trying to do a science experiment with two variables but you've cross contaminated the samples, so your results are muddled and inconclusive.

Everyone complains that there's no difference between the two parties. And they're right, but the solution therefore is to sort them out. But if you do that, your admonished for being 'divisive' or some such. When I say sort out I'm not so much talking about the party members themselves, but the politicians. If I could kick Lindsey Graham back over to the left (where he'd be a better fit, IMO), I'd do it in a heartbeat.




It's a fair point. You can't really do it without some degree of force. In the lead up to the Civil War, union sympathizers were basically told to GTFO of the southern states. I wonder how things were done in the American Revolution with the patriots and the loyalists. That was back when it took half a day to visit the next town. Now it takes a 15 minute car ride. So it isn't like you can just ignore each other because the proximity has been enhanced through technological advances.

The only way I could see it done (which would still be quite challenging) is to make people generally uncomfortable with their surroundings, so much so that they divide themselves. People can be quite hard-headed though. Consider all the California transplants moving to Florida even though they supposedly hate DeSantis and the way the state is managed. The notion that the reason Florida does so well is specifically because it isn't managed like California, rarely even enters their minds.

I recall the billboard in Texas that was protested against because it was basically a big 'UNwelcome to Texas' sign. Public pressure got them to take it down, but you can't have it both ways. You're going to have to put a foot down at some point because after a threshold gets hit, liberalism will spread like cancer. I worry about Georgia and this idiot governor we have who has been trying to attract the predominantly-liberal Hollyweird industry to our state. That's not really the crowd you want to continue growing the tumor known as the city of Atlanta and its metro region. Attract some farmers or something.
In the Revolution Tories were run out of town on a rail and driven into Canada.
 
Back
Top