Thursday, November 15, 2012

Another Interesting Idea?

Just to be fair...not that I find "fairness" a particularly admirable characteristic...but because I need to check out all sides of an argument to make sure I choose the right one—

—here is an article dissing the idea of "Burn the Village Down".

I'm not sure he's considered all the relevant possibilities. Honestly, threatening Hitler after Chaos is easy, almost cliched, hardly original or well-considered. I suggest, for example, the Tea Party Conservatives can prepare itself to emerge as the new leadership after a forced, encouraged crash...both acting as leaders locally and nationally. Particularly if they are aware that a crash is coming because they are abetting it...

...but nevertheless, Raves makes some interesting suggestions about setting members of the Liberal coalition at each others' throats.

We haven't really tried that, have we? And it ought to be easy enough to do, I suppose since all we really have to do is demonstrate what each tribal group really wants and who they'll plunder and destroy to get it.

Divide and Conquer. Hmmmm. A novel idea.

This certainly is less radical, less destructive of culture and wealth. And probably a lot less effort.

I might just like it.

The Gunslinger
"Maybe the only way to save our village is to let Ă˜bama burn it down"


  1. I'm not claiming to have an answer but I haven't seen an idea yet that will save America, and by that I mean restore it to a constitutional republic faithful to our founding documents. How the strategy proposed here will do that eludes me.

    Pitting one voting bloc against another in the Democrat Party is going to produce what result? It is party in-fighting and that is all it is. The loser isn't going to run out and embrace Republicans, Conservatives or Libertarians. They will still vote Democrat with the hope they can regain whatever power they may have lost. Seriously, how many gay Muslims are there to demand a gay mosque? A gay atheist isn't going to do it.

    Creating a schism between blacks and Hispanics won't work either. There already is a schism and the Hispanics are winning, but that is at the street level. Both black and Hispanic leaders will call for harmony, take some photos shalking hands and bury the issue. Is one side going to jump to the Republicans and vote against the Democrats, or form a third party? It isn't going to happen.

    It may be possible to split the left, but they will still be leftists when all is said and done. The power struggle will be in the party and the country will still be the prize.

  2. This is first step, Tru, not the final one.

    His point is that their alliance is fragile, and we have never tried to exploit that.

    Remember, every person who votes Democrat is not a Leftist. Most of them are merely badly misinformed because they believe what they're told by the Entertainment, Education, Information Media troika.

    It is they we have to reach.

    I'm happy to entertain and ideas you'd care to propose, of course!

    1. They are not all leftists but they are mostly in leftist groups because they are groupies. The blocs tell the story of why they are groupies. They idea they are badly misinformed by the media just doesn't fly. How did the media badly inform Hispanics about sticking together and favoring amnesty, or blacks about favoring a black president? They all look to big governemnt anyway and figure even if they are not the power in the Democrat party, it is still better to elect a Democrat than a Republican.

      I would say these are not steps, but tactics and some are better than others. I just don't see how this one splits the opposition to vote against each other or not vote at all.

      As for my ideas, sorry, just don't have them well formed enough yet to present. I'm not even sure I can state a realistic objective, but that must be done as well.