Parvini strikes me as a liberal who thinks being on the right is cool and is utterly shocked by right wing ideas, and can’t seem to understand why right wingers aren’t just cool right wing liberals instead.
Whether or not Parvini is simply a liberal masquerading as conservative is not for me to judge. What is clear, however, is that he has fully embraced the Marxist truism that OPPRESSION EQUALS STATUS. This explains why he (along with many other establishment Republicans) appears indifferent to wielding power, since within that framework there is nothing to be gained from it.
I can just picture AA sitting in a Seattle bar wearing a leather jacket saying something like "Nirvana ruined grunge by making it too popular". We are starving dogs, we should be able to eat our cheesy puffs.
The right is the midwit meme. It is an alliance between the right-tail sage and the left-tail brainlet. Academic Agent's argument, however, is pure midwittery. Basically "the right is bad because it produces content by and for the brainlet." But the right without the brainlet is not a viable movement. It would be nothing more than ineffectual nobodies navel-gazing and reveling in an impotent but smug sense of superiority.
For better or worse (probably for worse), social media exists and is hugely influential. Unfortunately, the medium inherently rewards slop. The right can either fight in that unpleasant arena or cede it to the enemy. Ceding it, as Academic Agent argues for, is suicide.
Sure, it would be great to live in a purely high-brow world with purely high-brow political discourse and movements. But that world will never exist. We, as individuals, can and should opt to consume primarily high-brow content. But to criticize political allies who produce and consume lower-brow content is to make the perfect the enemy of the good. It is also an unappealing display of moral preening, virtue signaling, and elitism of the sort generally associated with the left.
Slop is a problem for the right. Candace Owens, for example, has done incalculable damage to the right and its morale, given her malicious prognostications about anything and everything. Conspiracy-theory mongering is definitely a corrosive tendency we are especially susceptible to mainly because, I believe, we ditched trusted, traditional "objective" new media -- rightfully -- and colonized alternative media spaces first. But it's a problem for everyone in this new virtual world we've all created and now occupy. Everyone dwells in hyperreality, and there is no sealing Pandora's box.
The issue also doesn't start with internet, which just churns an idea's lifespan at an increasingly fast rate that exceeds any media before it. Similar handwringing was being done 15 years ago when I was in journalism school about the rise of bloggers and the "journalism of affirmation" of cable news shock-jocks that was out-competing the technocratic, "objective" journalism that practiced the "discipline of verification" found in the reporting of august institutions like the New York Times and 60 Minutes. In contrast, Fox News, of course, was the most grievous of offenders, supposedly rage-baiting conservatives into a vicious ideological feedback loop that liberal progressives, without a hint of irony, believed themselves completely inoculated against thanks in fact to their own self-selected, bien pensant media diets of NPR, HBO, and Nicholas Kristof. Go back more than 100 years, and Walter Lippmann was writing about how readers of newspapers could not get outside of the "pictures in their heads" and grasp reality because of their simplistic "stereotypes." Hell, Plato's Allegory of the Cave is dealing with these same perennial themes because sophistry and illusion are ancient vexations of the human soul, not just the scourge of right-wing shit-poasters in the 2020s. That's what is missing in these analyses like Parvini.
Too be fair, I’m more acquainted with it than most and have been thinking about media for longer and harder than the average person. I remember sitting in lectures, circa 2008, when Twitter was just starting to gain traction. Boy, being a conservative fly on the wall in j-school at the time, you could see the group-think about how Jack Dorsey’s creation was cool, hop, an sophisticated for these people.
As a 64 year old English woman who used to read The Guardian and listen to BBC Radio 4 every single day I have to confess I have fallen for a lot of nonsense during my life. But…I began to think for myself around fifteen years ago because of the ‘global warming’ psych-op. I began to do my ‘own research’, as they say, and, once that particular nonsense was exposed, well, off I went down many rabbit holes. Good for me - at the very least I avoided the poison jabs, never wore a mask, never believed a single word of the pandemic idiocy from the very day I heard of it. I voted Leave in 2016 because I loathe bureaucracy…But…who to believe on the right? I have liked Matt Walsh since I first heard of him about five years ago - and I agree with you in his bravery regarding the ‘trans’ evil, and also loved his exposure of the DEI horrors - the ‘white fragility’ bol%ocks. Academic Agent has some interesting points about other stuff, but I always thought he was a bit pompous, a recognisable type of windbag…
But what about men like James Delingpole? I discovered him years ago and his book Watermelons was a good starting point exposing the climate lies. Delingpole has taken the position that everything is fake - every mass shooting, every assassination or attempted assassination; all the Muslim terror attacks, all their bombings and invasions, beheadings and murdering of little children - all fake, with fake blood and fake deaths and fake relatives saying fake stuff about how we should all try to get along and not hate murderous Muslims because ‘racism’. Delingpole, and others, see right through this globalist baloney: Crisis Actors all. Sometimes such talk is compelling, it’s certainly entertaining - are we not entertained? I am a bored housewife who used to have novels published, I read and watch a very great deal. I know the algorithm caters to my whims, however. AI ‘slop’ has arrived in my YouTube feed and even I am beginning to recognise its fakery, compelling though it is, mining as it does all the world’s knowledge of, say, Napoleon; I suppose Napoleon is pretty safe: on the one hand this, on the other hand that, quite educational, for all I know. I wasn’t taught this stuff in my (very bad) school.
Is everything fake? Is President Trump a puppet or a king or a powerful business man sick to the back teeth - as most of us are - over the ruin of our countries by what seems to me extremely malign forces? A powerful, very wealthy man who decided that in order for his descendants to make even more money - or even keep the money they have - something needs to be done about the malignancy before it’s too late. I tend to think - hope - that he is the man who decided enough was enough: let’s go to the table and make deals. Let’s be sensible under the guise of being a crazy man who upsets the horrible midwits and nitwits with talk of invasions whilst calling the midwit, nitwit ‘elites’ very fine people. Ha Ha Ha. He’s a fine comedian, a fine actor - a fake? Let’s hope not.
All I want is small government, very low taxes, private healthcare for all paid for by insurance - low risk youngsters, low premiums…An informed public, taught in schools to the age of 16 how to think critically, how to look after their health and that of their future children, how to cook and manage their finances. University should be for the top 5% at most. If a child has no ability ever to able to read or write, we should spend far less on them and far, far more on average children, and more again on the talented (in whatever field).
I actually want mass deportations, and very little money spent on welfare and that only spent on British people who are in dire straights. More roles for real, government-free charities. No state recognition of Islam, a ban on mosque building, an effort to close down most of them, banning the burqa and halal slaughter…perhaps then the Muslims will self deport…I could go on and on and already have. Am I too believing of ‘right wing slop’ to want this? Do I hate the Muslims because of the beheadings and the knifings - which may or may not be fake? I am very gullible, or not gullible at all. If I ruled the world, every day would be the first day of spring…
I'm American but I resonate with a lot of this. Once I decided I had to rip out my entire paradigm of "how I decide to trust people" and start over, it became very, very difficult. I don't think I'm a stupid person, but recognizing that most of my information about the world is at least second or thirdhand and some of the people sharing it may actively wish me and people like me harm can feel devastating. I
I have several friends and family members, whom I love dearly, who glom onto some of these figures (like Candace Owens) that I just find absolutely insufferable. I'm not deep into any kind of political movement besides just raising my family the best I can and deepening my prayer life, but I do see some of this stuff and think, "No way will this convince anyone else not already on this side, and honestly I'm kind of ashamed and feel like distancing myself from it because it's totally insane."
At the same time, though, I think that most people just aren't open to having their minds changed about things, at least not in any deliberate way. I won't say I became right-wing against my will, but it was definitely the result of carefully considering principles and fundamental truths against very intense scrutiny of my priors, which I didn't want to let go of because it was embarrassing to have to admit to myself that I was wrong and that I would have to let go of my former way of life. But it also came about in an entirely non-intellectual way through my lived experience as a wife and mother, and I have a lot of respect for people who don't have to over-intellectualize things to grasp basic truths about the nature of existence. I think there has to be some kind of space for, maybe, a "low church" style of politics that isn't slop, and I don't want to let the slop artists completely take over that space.
“Is everything fake?” No, it is not, which is why, as much as I appreciate some of what Delingpole has done, his kind of totalizing doubting cynicism is a dead end. Accepting that an objective reality exists—that truth can be known—has to be the cornerstone of anything claiming to be conservative or traditional. The desire to question everything, to see everything as a conspiracy that must be unmasked, is a kind postmodern cynicism that rejects the existence and providence of God. It is not only not helpful but is incapable of building anything constructive. It is a spirit of cynical destruction that is antithetical to tradition.
I think you are mistaken to take Parvini for face value as a genuine rightist. To me this essay reeks of concern trolling, Right in Name Only, etc. We don’t need “friends like this” on our side.
Parvini has done a lot for RW thought and community building over the years, that's worth recognising. But he's also a contrarian by nature. He says so himself.
If the right had dominated all of our institutions for the past 70 years he'd be writing elite theory books for leftists.
Parvini is English and a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Heterodox Studies at University of Buckingham? Well now! I’m all in on his opinion of the American Right, given what they’ve done for themselves in jolly old England. Pip pip, what, what, say no more, say no more, eh?
Neema, this is what it takes to get back the country that the Democrats have given away and that Republicans permitted. Being nice, standing on the moral high ground, “muh, principles”, and bipartisanship are what got us here. They don’t work, they never did. What works is smashing your enemy until they can no longer fight, a lesson Churchill knew, but modern England has forgotten. So enjoy sharia law when it comes for you. Bye now!
AA is one of those people who really just want to complain about how bad it is; and won't give up the slightest amount of comfort to change the things he's ostensibly worrying about.
Excellent. Specific critiques on specific statements and actions are welcomed. Broad brush attacks not so much. We are in a war and we better start acting like it. Keep your fire down range. There are plenty of targets. The “problem” in Minneapolis is CREATED by the left. We need to forcefully shut it down. As Stalin advised his forces in Stalingrad, “not one step back”.
Those on the right who are concerned about the midterms are abandoning their brethren in Minnesota when they urge to pull back and not restore order with the presence capable of protecting ICE. Allowing an armed mob to intercede with federal law enforcement while executing their duties sends a message to conservatives local to the Minneapolis community that lawlessness will remain unabated, and can we say that they same group will not use intimidation during the election, they will not cheat at the ballot box and that they will not antagonize members of their communities who want the rule of law? The mob has been canvassing homes in order to protect illegals, we can’t imagine them using the processes to identify those who did not come out and support anti-ICE efforts. How can MInneapolis vote their way out this when there are armed “protestors” roving neighborhoods?
So in every area where there is protest, and the possible concern of escalation because now the protestors have gained experience going up against armed federal authorities, do we honestly think that people will not be intimidated into silence? I live in an area in Detroit where houses have been spray painted because the owners spoke out against a school bond. The police have allowed protestors, in masks with radios and poles that could double as weapons walk freely while others protested in support of trans reading hour at a local book store. These groups are well funded, organized and we let them burn cities and think now that with out support from afar those left in those burned out regions rally to our cause while we are in relative safety.
Instead of being better conservatives or better angels, we should ask what would we want if this violence comes to our area. I think the answer is far different than hope to charm people to our side. If our side means we don’t maintain order, we don’t care enough about those values.
I've been so focused on my State of Minnesota, I only glanced at this debate yesterday.
When I saw a Note about it complaining about slop chimps on X, I thought, you brainiac retards, chimps follow power, not IQ. Chimps will go to war, as you say, following courage, not some effete English intellectual liberal pretending after conservatism.
IDK, these elite human capital types on the "right" are insufferable. Spineless. Two bolshevik types, people who thought they were playing a game, got shot by ICE, and you all go weak in the knees? My State is on the precipice of a full-on neo-marxist insurrection and you are complaining about chimps on X. Fuck Right Off.
What I see mostly on X are some very talented warriors, going to war against that Insurrection, marxist insurgency. Get over yourselves.
From Robert Malone News' Substact. Quoting a former US Army counterinsurgency SWA.
This is what we have in MN and OR and what can be replicated in almost any state
"As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops—both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations—I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly.
What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest.” It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook.
Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction—or worse.
This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s.
The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in. When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers—complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal—you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity.
I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night.
Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war.
We either recognize what we’re actually looking at—or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread.
Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics anymore.
It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil."
Parvini puts antizionism over most political objectives, that's the reason for his stances against the dissident right — he feels they are bought and paid for by Bibi.
Agreed. A great deal of Parvini's recent stance is almost certainly posturing. A calculation.
Specifically, I am above the petty concerns of the clowns stuck in the trenches. I see further while you post memes and engage in other surrogate activities. Oh, what's that? You don't know what a surrogate activity is? Shame on you; only right-wing slop merchants haven't red uncle Ted. And on and on...
There is a theatrical element to it. Which is a shame. His Populist Delusion is good. He makes some great observations in it. But I detect a need to appear superior while the rest of us try to make sense of reality unfolding. If he had stuck to the premise of his book, and viewed the memes and all the rest as part of the process that might usher in a counter-elite bolstered by popular support, then he would have been on to something.
I also agree about Walsh. Writing him off as some kind of loyal opposition is not supported by evidence.
Parvini strikes me as a liberal who thinks being on the right is cool and is utterly shocked by right wing ideas, and can’t seem to understand why right wingers aren’t just cool right wing liberals instead.
He strikes me as a pompous ass, smoking his cigars and pontificating away….
Whether or not Parvini is simply a liberal masquerading as conservative is not for me to judge. What is clear, however, is that he has fully embraced the Marxist truism that OPPRESSION EQUALS STATUS. This explains why he (along with many other establishment Republicans) appears indifferent to wielding power, since within that framework there is nothing to be gained from it.
Parvini litterally describes himself as a "Sensible centrist".
Parvini is a big Evola enthusiast
Loving the guy "El Duce" thought was a nut job is always cause for concern.
I don’t know how that meshes with being center leftist, at least according to your note.
I can just picture AA sitting in a Seattle bar wearing a leather jacket saying something like "Nirvana ruined grunge by making it too popular". We are starving dogs, we should be able to eat our cheesy puffs.
The right is the midwit meme. It is an alliance between the right-tail sage and the left-tail brainlet. Academic Agent's argument, however, is pure midwittery. Basically "the right is bad because it produces content by and for the brainlet." But the right without the brainlet is not a viable movement. It would be nothing more than ineffectual nobodies navel-gazing and reveling in an impotent but smug sense of superiority.
For better or worse (probably for worse), social media exists and is hugely influential. Unfortunately, the medium inherently rewards slop. The right can either fight in that unpleasant arena or cede it to the enemy. Ceding it, as Academic Agent argues for, is suicide.
Sure, it would be great to live in a purely high-brow world with purely high-brow political discourse and movements. But that world will never exist. We, as individuals, can and should opt to consume primarily high-brow content. But to criticize political allies who produce and consume lower-brow content is to make the perfect the enemy of the good. It is also an unappealing display of moral preening, virtue signaling, and elitism of the sort generally associated with the left.
Slop is a problem for the right. Candace Owens, for example, has done incalculable damage to the right and its morale, given her malicious prognostications about anything and everything. Conspiracy-theory mongering is definitely a corrosive tendency we are especially susceptible to mainly because, I believe, we ditched trusted, traditional "objective" new media -- rightfully -- and colonized alternative media spaces first. But it's a problem for everyone in this new virtual world we've all created and now occupy. Everyone dwells in hyperreality, and there is no sealing Pandora's box.
The issue also doesn't start with internet, which just churns an idea's lifespan at an increasingly fast rate that exceeds any media before it. Similar handwringing was being done 15 years ago when I was in journalism school about the rise of bloggers and the "journalism of affirmation" of cable news shock-jocks that was out-competing the technocratic, "objective" journalism that practiced the "discipline of verification" found in the reporting of august institutions like the New York Times and 60 Minutes. In contrast, Fox News, of course, was the most grievous of offenders, supposedly rage-baiting conservatives into a vicious ideological feedback loop that liberal progressives, without a hint of irony, believed themselves completely inoculated against thanks in fact to their own self-selected, bien pensant media diets of NPR, HBO, and Nicholas Kristof. Go back more than 100 years, and Walter Lippmann was writing about how readers of newspapers could not get outside of the "pictures in their heads" and grasp reality because of their simplistic "stereotypes." Hell, Plato's Allegory of the Cave is dealing with these same perennial themes because sophistry and illusion are ancient vexations of the human soul, not just the scourge of right-wing shit-poasters in the 2020s. That's what is missing in these analyses like Parvini.
You gave more specific examples of the phenomenon in this one comment than he did in his whole piece.
And PARVINI was the one complaining about slop? Maybe his piece was supposed to be ironic! lol
Too be fair, I’m more acquainted with it than most and have been thinking about media for longer and harder than the average person. I remember sitting in lectures, circa 2008, when Twitter was just starting to gain traction. Boy, being a conservative fly on the wall in j-school at the time, you could see the group-think about how Jack Dorsey’s creation was cool, hop, an sophisticated for these people.
As a 64 year old English woman who used to read The Guardian and listen to BBC Radio 4 every single day I have to confess I have fallen for a lot of nonsense during my life. But…I began to think for myself around fifteen years ago because of the ‘global warming’ psych-op. I began to do my ‘own research’, as they say, and, once that particular nonsense was exposed, well, off I went down many rabbit holes. Good for me - at the very least I avoided the poison jabs, never wore a mask, never believed a single word of the pandemic idiocy from the very day I heard of it. I voted Leave in 2016 because I loathe bureaucracy…But…who to believe on the right? I have liked Matt Walsh since I first heard of him about five years ago - and I agree with you in his bravery regarding the ‘trans’ evil, and also loved his exposure of the DEI horrors - the ‘white fragility’ bol%ocks. Academic Agent has some interesting points about other stuff, but I always thought he was a bit pompous, a recognisable type of windbag…
But what about men like James Delingpole? I discovered him years ago and his book Watermelons was a good starting point exposing the climate lies. Delingpole has taken the position that everything is fake - every mass shooting, every assassination or attempted assassination; all the Muslim terror attacks, all their bombings and invasions, beheadings and murdering of little children - all fake, with fake blood and fake deaths and fake relatives saying fake stuff about how we should all try to get along and not hate murderous Muslims because ‘racism’. Delingpole, and others, see right through this globalist baloney: Crisis Actors all. Sometimes such talk is compelling, it’s certainly entertaining - are we not entertained? I am a bored housewife who used to have novels published, I read and watch a very great deal. I know the algorithm caters to my whims, however. AI ‘slop’ has arrived in my YouTube feed and even I am beginning to recognise its fakery, compelling though it is, mining as it does all the world’s knowledge of, say, Napoleon; I suppose Napoleon is pretty safe: on the one hand this, on the other hand that, quite educational, for all I know. I wasn’t taught this stuff in my (very bad) school.
Is everything fake? Is President Trump a puppet or a king or a powerful business man sick to the back teeth - as most of us are - over the ruin of our countries by what seems to me extremely malign forces? A powerful, very wealthy man who decided that in order for his descendants to make even more money - or even keep the money they have - something needs to be done about the malignancy before it’s too late. I tend to think - hope - that he is the man who decided enough was enough: let’s go to the table and make deals. Let’s be sensible under the guise of being a crazy man who upsets the horrible midwits and nitwits with talk of invasions whilst calling the midwit, nitwit ‘elites’ very fine people. Ha Ha Ha. He’s a fine comedian, a fine actor - a fake? Let’s hope not.
All I want is small government, very low taxes, private healthcare for all paid for by insurance - low risk youngsters, low premiums…An informed public, taught in schools to the age of 16 how to think critically, how to look after their health and that of their future children, how to cook and manage their finances. University should be for the top 5% at most. If a child has no ability ever to able to read or write, we should spend far less on them and far, far more on average children, and more again on the talented (in whatever field).
I actually want mass deportations, and very little money spent on welfare and that only spent on British people who are in dire straights. More roles for real, government-free charities. No state recognition of Islam, a ban on mosque building, an effort to close down most of them, banning the burqa and halal slaughter…perhaps then the Muslims will self deport…I could go on and on and already have. Am I too believing of ‘right wing slop’ to want this? Do I hate the Muslims because of the beheadings and the knifings - which may or may not be fake? I am very gullible, or not gullible at all. If I ruled the world, every day would be the first day of spring…
I'm American but I resonate with a lot of this. Once I decided I had to rip out my entire paradigm of "how I decide to trust people" and start over, it became very, very difficult. I don't think I'm a stupid person, but recognizing that most of my information about the world is at least second or thirdhand and some of the people sharing it may actively wish me and people like me harm can feel devastating. I
I have several friends and family members, whom I love dearly, who glom onto some of these figures (like Candace Owens) that I just find absolutely insufferable. I'm not deep into any kind of political movement besides just raising my family the best I can and deepening my prayer life, but I do see some of this stuff and think, "No way will this convince anyone else not already on this side, and honestly I'm kind of ashamed and feel like distancing myself from it because it's totally insane."
At the same time, though, I think that most people just aren't open to having their minds changed about things, at least not in any deliberate way. I won't say I became right-wing against my will, but it was definitely the result of carefully considering principles and fundamental truths against very intense scrutiny of my priors, which I didn't want to let go of because it was embarrassing to have to admit to myself that I was wrong and that I would have to let go of my former way of life. But it also came about in an entirely non-intellectual way through my lived experience as a wife and mother, and I have a lot of respect for people who don't have to over-intellectualize things to grasp basic truths about the nature of existence. I think there has to be some kind of space for, maybe, a "low church" style of politics that isn't slop, and I don't want to let the slop artists completely take over that space.
“Is everything fake?” No, it is not, which is why, as much as I appreciate some of what Delingpole has done, his kind of totalizing doubting cynicism is a dead end. Accepting that an objective reality exists—that truth can be known—has to be the cornerstone of anything claiming to be conservative or traditional. The desire to question everything, to see everything as a conspiracy that must be unmasked, is a kind postmodern cynicism that rejects the existence and providence of God. It is not only not helpful but is incapable of building anything constructive. It is a spirit of cynical destruction that is antithetical to tradition.
I think you are mistaken to take Parvini for face value as a genuine rightist. To me this essay reeks of concern trolling, Right in Name Only, etc. We don’t need “friends like this” on our side.
I don’t think he’s a rightist at all, and to my knowledge doesn’t claim to be. I actually called it concern trolling.
Well said.
Parvini has done a lot for RW thought and community building over the years, that's worth recognising. But he's also a contrarian by nature. He says so himself.
If the right had dominated all of our institutions for the past 70 years he'd be writing elite theory books for leftists.
Parvini is English and a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Heterodox Studies at University of Buckingham? Well now! I’m all in on his opinion of the American Right, given what they’ve done for themselves in jolly old England. Pip pip, what, what, say no more, say no more, eh?
Neema, this is what it takes to get back the country that the Democrats have given away and that Republicans permitted. Being nice, standing on the moral high ground, “muh, principles”, and bipartisanship are what got us here. They don’t work, they never did. What works is smashing your enemy until they can no longer fight, a lesson Churchill knew, but modern England has forgotten. So enjoy sharia law when it comes for you. Bye now!
AA is one of those people who really just want to complain about how bad it is; and won't give up the slightest amount of comfort to change the things he's ostensibly worrying about.
Excellent. Specific critiques on specific statements and actions are welcomed. Broad brush attacks not so much. We are in a war and we better start acting like it. Keep your fire down range. There are plenty of targets. The “problem” in Minneapolis is CREATED by the left. We need to forcefully shut it down. As Stalin advised his forces in Stalingrad, “not one step back”.
Those on the right who are concerned about the midterms are abandoning their brethren in Minnesota when they urge to pull back and not restore order with the presence capable of protecting ICE. Allowing an armed mob to intercede with federal law enforcement while executing their duties sends a message to conservatives local to the Minneapolis community that lawlessness will remain unabated, and can we say that they same group will not use intimidation during the election, they will not cheat at the ballot box and that they will not antagonize members of their communities who want the rule of law? The mob has been canvassing homes in order to protect illegals, we can’t imagine them using the processes to identify those who did not come out and support anti-ICE efforts. How can MInneapolis vote their way out this when there are armed “protestors” roving neighborhoods?
So in every area where there is protest, and the possible concern of escalation because now the protestors have gained experience going up against armed federal authorities, do we honestly think that people will not be intimidated into silence? I live in an area in Detroit where houses have been spray painted because the owners spoke out against a school bond. The police have allowed protestors, in masks with radios and poles that could double as weapons walk freely while others protested in support of trans reading hour at a local book store. These groups are well funded, organized and we let them burn cities and think now that with out support from afar those left in those burned out regions rally to our cause while we are in relative safety.
Instead of being better conservatives or better angels, we should ask what would we want if this violence comes to our area. I think the answer is far different than hope to charm people to our side. If our side means we don’t maintain order, we don’t care enough about those values.
I've been so focused on my State of Minnesota, I only glanced at this debate yesterday.
When I saw a Note about it complaining about slop chimps on X, I thought, you brainiac retards, chimps follow power, not IQ. Chimps will go to war, as you say, following courage, not some effete English intellectual liberal pretending after conservatism.
IDK, these elite human capital types on the "right" are insufferable. Spineless. Two bolshevik types, people who thought they were playing a game, got shot by ICE, and you all go weak in the knees? My State is on the precipice of a full-on neo-marxist insurrection and you are complaining about chimps on X. Fuck Right Off.
What I see mostly on X are some very talented warriors, going to war against that Insurrection, marxist insurgency. Get over yourselves.
Thank you for calling it out, Librarian.
Great comment!
From Robert Malone News' Substact. Quoting a former US Army counterinsurgency SWA.
This is what we have in MN and OR and what can be replicated in almost any state
"As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops—both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations—I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly.
What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest.” It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook.
Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction—or worse.
This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s.
The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in. When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers—complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal—you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity.
I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night.
Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war.
We either recognize what we’re actually looking at—or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread.
Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics anymore.
It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil."
Parvini puts antizionism over most political objectives, that's the reason for his stances against the dissident right — he feels they are bought and paid for by Bibi.
Agreed. A great deal of Parvini's recent stance is almost certainly posturing. A calculation.
Specifically, I am above the petty concerns of the clowns stuck in the trenches. I see further while you post memes and engage in other surrogate activities. Oh, what's that? You don't know what a surrogate activity is? Shame on you; only right-wing slop merchants haven't red uncle Ted. And on and on...
There is a theatrical element to it. Which is a shame. His Populist Delusion is good. He makes some great observations in it. But I detect a need to appear superior while the rest of us try to make sense of reality unfolding. If he had stuck to the premise of his book, and viewed the memes and all the rest as part of the process that might usher in a counter-elite bolstered by popular support, then he would have been on to something.
I also agree about Walsh. Writing him off as some kind of loyal opposition is not supported by evidence.
It’s simulation theater of The Spectacle of the Real. Its purpose is social control, so that no one actually has a real independent thought.
Parvini is a moron, always wrong about everything, yet never willing to admit it when proven wrong.
The wrongness is bad, but doesn’t irk me as much as the smug dismissal of people doing hard work in the field.