Cuckservatism 2.0 and litmus test

I was recently invited to join a private discussion group for high-IQ people. It didn’t work out. Frankly I’ve come to respect the left a whole lot more than the right. They may not believe in truth, but they believe in praxis. And when it comes to foxholes, I’ll take someone who believes in doing the right thing over someone who believes in believing the right thing any day. I.e. I’ll take a useful idiot over a useless genius.

I would love to get all autistic about theology and metaphysics, and hopefully someday a world will exist where I can do that without regrets about things left undone. But Western Civ is under siege and joining a resistance group to find it’s actually a club for people who want to jerk off to their notions about how things ought to be is discouraging. What I want is to kill people who need killing, but since that’s not how wars are fought now I’m on the internet instead.

In my opinion, an intellectual without the courage of his convictions is worse than a traitor. Maybe that’s merely rhetorical, I haven’t decided yet. My feeling on the matter is just very strong at this point. The future litmus test for people and groups is the following (arrows are prompts, quotes are responses):

-> Would you say the right is comprised primarily of winners or losers?

  1. “Winners.” -> Okay, what victories have they won?
    1. “They’re FATED to win in the FUTURE by holding superior IDEAS.” -> Spiteful mutant. First in line for the gas chambers.
    2. “Well, let me qualify that by saying they’re the sort who typically win under ordinary circumstances (e.g. Darwinian selection pressure).” -> What do you propose?
      1. “Here are some ideas that suggest I’ve considered that question before now for at least five seconds.” -> I can work with this guy. Possesses both intellectual honesty and courage, leadership potential if also charismatic.
      2. “Here are some ideas that suggest I’ve never taken initiative in my life.” -> Low moral effort political Calvinist. Hasn’t engaged in political activism in at least five years. Potentially useful idiot.
      3. “Speak truth to power! We’re breaking the conditioning!” -> What amount of personal risk is acceptable to you?
        1. “A lot.” -> I can work with this guy. Possesses both intellectual honesty and courage, leadership potential if also charismatic.
        2. “Some.” -> Low moral effort political Calvinist. Hasn’t engaged in political activism in at least five years. Potentially useful idiot.
        3. “Dunno.” -> Low moral effort political Calvinist. Hasn’t engaged in political activism in at least five years. Potentially useful idiot.
        4. “There shouldn’t be any if you’re doing it right.” -> Spiteful mutant. First in line for the gas chambers.
      4. “Dunno.” -> Low moral effort political Calvinist. Hasn’t engaged in political activism in at least five years. Potentially useful idiot.
      5. “Nothing. The stars foretell victory.” -> Low moral effort political Calvinist. Hasn’t engaged in political activism in at least five years. Potentially useful idiot.
    3. “TRUMP is winning more and more every day!” -> Low moral effort political Calvinist. Hasn’t engaged in political activism in at least five years. Potentially useful idiot.
    4. “Uh, none I guess. I never thought of it that way before.” -> Low moral effort political Calvinist. Hasn’t engaged in political activism in at least five years. Potentially useful idiot.
  1. “Losers.” -> Do you intend to fight for them anyway?
    1. “Yes.” -> I can work with this guy. Possesses both intellectual honesty and courage, leadership potential if also charismatic.
    2. “No.” -> Useless person, but an honest one. Could consult with them when I need a dose of pessimism or put them on retainer as an adviser.
    3. “Dunno.” -> Low moral effort political Calvinist. Hasn’t engaged in political activism in at least five years. Potentially useful idiot.
  2. “What do you mean by ‘right’?” -> Low moral effort political Calvinist. Hasn’t engaged in political activism in at least five years. Potentially useful idiot.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Cuckservatism 2.0 and litmus test

  1. Big says:

    What exactly is a spiteful mutant? I’ve heard it a lot but haven’t seen it defined anywhere.

  2. another handle says:

    Spiteful mutant isn’t in the ‘loser’ decision tree. May have to rework your logic diagram.

    Too bad there isn’t an antagonist to the spiteful mutation; that is the posse I want to join. Unfortunately, I think Bi fruitless with the political right as constituted.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Spiteful mutant isn’t in the ‘loser’ decision tree. May have to rework your logic diagram.

      You may have to rework your understanding of decision trees. There’s no requirement that they have to be balanced like an equation.

  3. bicebicebice says:

    “About Me
    My photo
    Texas Arcane
    I am the man who woke up and stayed awake, in a world of sleepers. If you’re awake, keep watch with me. If you’re asleep, see to it you don’t come here or you’ll see only nightmares.” nope nothing in the fineprint about being anything other than a watcher cleared of all charges in internet court KEEP KEEPING THE WATCH AND WATCH WHAT IS WATCHABLE

  4. Pingback: 40 days and 40 nights (part 13) – 2 Malachi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s