Conservatives are winning the media war

Via email from Chet:

Interesting. He presents data indicating conservative media sources are totally dominating the viewership and engagement numbers.

He, at least partially, attributes this to the hostility of the political left to even minor disagreement while the political right recruits people who engage with them. The political left is driving people out to increase their purity and the right is accepting them. I can see that being a supportable hypothesis.

My fear is a recollection is of another famous leftist organization which raised to power then started to fade. They went violent in a big way. They destroyed shops, buildings, murdered people in riots. They even burned the assembly location of their legislature.

Our political left is currently repeatedly demonstrating their willingness to go violent when they don’t get their way and the election next month could be the spark that ignites them.


14 thoughts on “Conservatives are winning the media war

  1. We have one big advantage over the citizenry of Germany.

    Senator Thomas Todd may have used the laws of the Weimar Republic and the NSDAP to aid in making our GCA 68 but it wasn’t so restrictive that the citizenry of the current times in the U.S. are as disarmed as they were.

    I can guarantee that no matter how ‘violent’ the left is, they know too well that we outgun them and only their idiots don’t account for that.
    We see that they go ape$#!+ only in places where TPTB let them.
    In my state, only in some places in Jackson County (KC) and St Louis County are riotous ‘demonstrations’ tolerated and even then not much.
    If antifa tried the crap they pulled in Portland a few days ago in any other large cities here, the Police would have them rounded up PDQ to protect them because if they didn’t, the normal populace would ‘Take Care of Business’ on their own.

    • Two or three graduates from Boomershoot, at standoff distances, could disrupt and disperse the average mob of antifas in a few minutes, with no help from police. If it ever came to that. Which it hopefully won’t

  2. What I don’t see yet is a charismatic leader to harness the mob. Germany had Hitler to harness and direct. The left has the mob in antifa and some of the millennials but right now no one to direct them unless Obama steps into the void. He is anarchistic enough to do it but I think to lazy too put in the effort

  3. “He is anarchistic enough to do it but I think to lazy too put in the effort”.
    I think he smoked too much as a teen, and when someone said, “Hey, run for office and we’ll bankroll you and tell you what to say,” that was just too much. He thought, “This sure beats working for a living and having to produce quality stuff for people who have choices of what to buy.”

  4. The news exaggerates the numbers and effect of the really small numbers of loud, obnoxious, potentially violent protesters that exist in the US. When one ass of a college prof with a bike lock can assault one person at a protest, and it becomes news nationwide, the “narrative” becomes distorted and states that violence is approaching a civil war. Really, there are a few thug idiots in each town. There are a few purposefully violent thug protesters in each town. And the rest of the “mob” are there for the show, to get out of classes, to meet hot chicks, or something equally non-violent.

    Police are often more sophisticated in defusing and stopping violent protests than you might think. In places like Charlottesville where the police purposefully allowed violent interactions between the two groups of protesters, one must look not to the protesters but to the mayor & police chief who allowed or encouraged the violence to happen. DC police, for example, handle protests of 10s to 100s of thousands regularly without any violence at all, because they know how to do so.

    So I am not worried about mass violence. I saw that in 1992 and 1968 and some points in between, and this ain’t the same today. This is people preening for the news cameras or the internet bloggers’ phone cams, not folks clamoring to burn down the neighborhood they live in.

    That may not be as exciting to think about, but it is closer to the truth. You fear a crowd of 40+ women in pussy hats, you need to re-adjust your fear factors.

    • There might only be one idiot with a bike lock.

      But if you’re the one he selects as a target you can still get badly hurt. And the ones he’s with, who see him doing it and don’t stop him, but are instead cheering him on? What of them?

  5. So what will happen if the Supreme Court overrules WA-I1639 and then the state of Washington declares the ruling illegitimate?

    • That’s kind of backwards I think. The Washington Supreme Court would have to rule on any state constitutionality claims first, then an appeal made to the US Supreme Court if necessary to rule on the Constitutionality of a (hopefully not) passed I-1639. At least, that’s how I think it would go.

      What would happen if 1639 passes would be, essentially, the creation of an expanded number of scofflaws (formerly law-abiding gun owners) who would continue on as before.

      • There is a huge legal loophole for a significant portion of the “requirements”. If the initiative passes and it is well known they will be inclined to plug it in a few years. If it doesn’t pass they will plug it in the next attempt at passage.

        My hope is that if it does pass people run as many truck loads of guns through that loophole as possible.

  6. Keeping score in the dog and pony show that is politics may be interesting, but it serves little purpose other than distracting us from the process of the erosion and minimization of basic principles.

    For just an inkling of what that means, listen carefully to any high profile “conservative” pundit. He or she will sometimes (but not often) say some very good things about American founding principles, about the Declaration’s assertion that rights come from God and are therefore untouchable, about how the constitution is being systematically demolished by Progressive authoritarians, etc.

    Then, just as you begin to think that said pundit has come to a moment of sudden and great revelation, he will wrap it all up by saying something along the lines of “We need to meet in the middle”, or “We must find common ground”, etc., thus negating all the wonderful, solid principles he was pretending to espouse just a few seconds earlier.

    It happens every time, and thus we are being spoon-fed the poison of progressive authoritarianism by disguising it in solid, Judaeo/Christian, libertarian principles. It’s brilliant, and deliciously evil. Thus the biggest, best, most effectively destructive lies contain mostly truth.

    They all do it.

    So the left goes apeshit, we meet them in the middle to put a stop to the chaos and pain, and at that first compromise we’re already half communist. Tomorrow they go apeshit again, of course, and again we meet them in the middle to show our virtue of compromise. Now we’re three quarters communist. After a few generations of this dog and pony show it no longer matters who’s “right wing” or who’s “left wing” because we’ve already accepted the authoritarian doctrine of compromise as our means to salvation.

    All “Conservatives” now espouse compromise above principles, and many will get downright nasty with anyone attempting to espouse principles above compromise.

    The team battles are just the means to keep us blinded to that fact, and so as we get closer to a full-on police state, the fake battles must become increasingly intense to keep us sufficiently distracted for as long as possible.

    Anyway, “Conservative” was made up as an epithet, to mean boring, old-fashioned, clinging to the past, etc., while “Progressive” was made up to instill excitement and connote advancement. “Right” and “left” are even more worthless terms and have no meaning that can be clearly articulated and agreed upon. As long as we’re talking “Conservative” this or “right and left” that, we’re mostly missing the point. The terminology is tactical.

    “Progressive” does however carry a clear and specific meaning at the command and control levels of politics. It means “incremental” and refers to their achieving what they call their “New World Order” by way of slow, incremental steps (as made possible by uplifting that false doctrine of compromise-as-virtue).

    All Democrats and virtually all Republicans are Progressives, so whichever team you root for (team spirit! RAAWWHHHH!!!) you’re rooting for the coming of the (authoritarian) New World Order, at which point we’ll have no solid defense for ourselves because every one of us will have helped it along (we’re all sinners, but who wants to speak of THAT anymore?).

    • Not a bad analysis. My fear is that the federal government will do nothing. That sounds worse than even a bad compromise.

      • On reflection, I don’t know. I would prefer the world I grew up in which I was able to purchase an Enfield 303 at age 17 with no hassle and $15.00.

  7. On reflection, I don’t know. I would prefer the world I grew up in which I was able to purchase an Enfield 303 at age 17 with no hassle and $15.00.

Comments are closed.