I will defend that white girl. Yeah RFH is right, but that doesn't matter.
You guys realize that "stupid" people will have to agree with us right? It is a good thing. Yeah, they aren't eloquent, and they are the equivalent of a toddler saying "fuck", but they are OUR people. We want them, and we need them. Is it cringe that that e-girl gets tons of followers? Yes. But it still represents one more small instance of our messaging spreading.
We want basic white moms to not care if a bunch of yappy browns call them racist. We have all seen that old 4chan post. Her thoughts passed through the "is this socially acceptable for me to say" filter and were deemed good. Her friends (a bunch of other white moms or soon to be moms) will defend her and congratulate her for the new fame.
Counter signal this woman if you love losing, but for everyone else NETTR.
Yes promoting a women's vulgar political commentary is inherently feminist but at least the RW aren't racing to see who can throw her under the bus fastest.
She lost her job but it seems the RW will support the lost income which is what the left has done for years for their own that take flak.
I don't know who won the sundress wars because I'm not gonna read a 5,000 word Zero HP dissertation on it. I will say though, that sundresses are good. Generally.
If that's the conclusion everyone finally came to then, welcome to the right side of history.
For Teddy Roosevelt, I think he's one of the best figures of American History.
He gets a lot of hate from the right for the establishment of national parks, though.
(And also for being a bit of a larping cowboy).
I think there's validity to the criticisms. But also believe that the preservation of nature and our natural resources is important.
Most people on the right seem to recognize this on a fundamental level - the pictures of women in sundresses are running through grassy fields, not dystopian techno hellscapes - but I'll leave it to smarter people than me to flesh out that argument without sounding like Greta Thunberg.
Are people really so desperate to not sound leftist that they're against our national parks? One of the greatest remaining things about this country that sets it apart? My contempt could not be greater.
Btw, HPZero's final dissertation was that it was a a really awesome and useful idea to burn women alive as witches like they did in the 17th century. Because that probably put some healthy fear in them and then maybe they'd be more willing to wear the clothes men want them to. And that maybe if a few hundred women got burned alive by furious masses now and then, they'd stop being so mean. One might think that's a snarky or strawman summary, but that was his actual point.
As a Brit, I am extremely envious of your national parks, and had I many more years to go, I'd try to visit them all. We only really have the Highlands of Scotland, which are nice but a bit samey.
As everyone properly should be! They're the glory of this country. I'm actually sickened to think anyone could have a problem with them, just to try to distinguish themselves (as a blackhearted jackass, apparently).
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the policy of burning women alive.
100% with you on the parks though. Protecting the country and our culture goes hand in hand with protecting nature and our parks.
I do think at least some of it is related to sort of Bundy Ranch type things.
That's sort of where I'm not well informed, the pros and cons of having people graze cattle on federal public land or w/e. But I naturally lean towards like.. if we let people just do what they want I'm almost 100% positive someone will come along and fuck it up.
But at the same time - is there bloat in organizations like the bureau of land management? idk, probably. But not really close to my list of important issues.
The ranchers all get to use massive amounts of land for practically free, and for FAR LESS than private land owners charge. Most of the non-BLM land out west is owned in huge tracts by billionaires like Ted Turner, and they don't just let people graze for pennies like BLM does -- they either prohibit grazing/fishing/hunting entirely or charge more than ten times as much.
The ranchers like Bundy huge crybabies who are all subsidized by the federal government yet they never stop complaining. For reference, in 2023 the cost for a grazing lease per Animal Unit Month (one cow or five sheep) was $1.35 for BLM land, about $7.00 for a state lease, and $19.00 on private land. And the BLM grazing program operates at a loss because they take in so little in fees, but god forbid if you ever try to slightly increase the rate to anything approaching market terms, the ranchers all go insane and pull a Bundy and threaten war. The taxpayers basically pay to subsidize the ranchers to be able to graze almost for free, on land they could never afford. Or at least, for 1/20th what they'd pay if Ted Turner or Harrison Ford or Schwarzenegger or the other rich dudes who own all the land in Idaho and Wyoming would charge them.
It's really a grotesque example of people who are completely subsidized by the government yet constantly bitching about it because that's what happens when you enable entitlements, I guess. They're the white western version of a welfare queen who claims the government is against her and she's oppressed.
It's interesting to me how people can fully get away with being a complete government teat sucking person whose entire life depends on subsidy, so long as you wear a cowboy hat while doing it. People pay a lot more attention to the symbology and aesthetics than they do the economics. It's a pretty good racket.
As a conservative, I hope “conservative art” would not be some kind of exclusive category. How about just art? And let it stand on its own merit or fall where it may. Otherwise it’s really just another form of propaganda. And I’ve had enough of that.
For decades "art" has generally been leftists trying to be edgy and transgressive with little to no effort at creating beauty or finding truth. And they've been gatekeeping the shit out of it. An artist who just creates beauty for its own sake thus becomes "conservative" by default.
I loved Twitter Likes because it helps you understand what content a poster you like enjoys, without forcing you to follow every single one of that poster's follows. It serves a lot of the same purpose of this here NRP substack.
Speaking of which, substack has never allowed you to see who likes any post, including your own. You have to go back through notifications to figure out who likes your stuff, and you can never see who likes anyone else's comments.
If the DR was the Death Star, attractive women would be its fatal flaw. Only instead of being an overlooked little exhaust port somewhere, the flaw is more like a giant unstable nuclear reactor covering every square inch of the surface. And there's a nearby space billboard saying, "Shoot here to blow up," and it's pointing to the entire Death Star.
Also:
So when a lifelong crack addict and career felon rapes and murders a random woman, this is bad.
But when thousands of women were agonizingly burned to death, this was... good?
I feel like there may be a flaw in the theory, somewhere.
I got zero sympathy for her, she’s an adult and knowingly cussed while bending over to give a view down the valley. She knows what she’s doing, cancellation was what she wanted and it’s what she got. Who cares? She should be beholden to her own actions, as all know the left will cancel any who utter the N word.
She was daring them, they did and then folks cry, not a hill worth dying upon not if you believe in personal responsibility.
I'm not willing to, I'm just holding her to account and saying let's let her drown in her own stupidity. There are more important battles to fight, why waste the effort and energy fighting this one when we should be fighting to restore things like the Bible in school, fighting to renew Church attendance, fighting to secure better literature in schools, fighting to market new creatives who love their art and God. Why fight for a woman who is seeking attention and just using us? What's the difference between her and an OnlyFans girl?
Sure I did (sarcasm), and you're guilty of poor literacy skills. I hold her to account as a human being, you don't poke a stick at a bear then get to act shocked when it tears off your head.
TonyZa, I find her guilty of suffering the consequences of her own actions, she wanted clout and she got it. She poked a bear for attention and got it, no need to enable her or to support what she did.
If the left wish to devour her let them, it was a risk she took in her quest for internet fame/narcissism. Let's not pretend she's some hero or martyr, or as though we have any obligation to her.
Why defend a female Nero, when we ought to be looking to safeguard Vespasianus? Leave her to the wolves she tempted happily and eagerly. We've bigger fish to fry.
But I weary of this argument, you know I'm right, I know I'm right. There's no further point to this, I won't be biting any more of your bait and attempt to capture my attention.
I will defend that white girl. Yeah RFH is right, but that doesn't matter.
You guys realize that "stupid" people will have to agree with us right? It is a good thing. Yeah, they aren't eloquent, and they are the equivalent of a toddler saying "fuck", but they are OUR people. We want them, and we need them. Is it cringe that that e-girl gets tons of followers? Yes. But it still represents one more small instance of our messaging spreading.
We want basic white moms to not care if a bunch of yappy browns call them racist. We have all seen that old 4chan post. Her thoughts passed through the "is this socially acceptable for me to say" filter and were deemed good. Her friends (a bunch of other white moms or soon to be moms) will defend her and congratulate her for the new fame.
Counter signal this woman if you love losing, but for everyone else NETTR.
Mega-based and followed. Nigga-sayers but not nigga-lovers deserve our tender appreciation; whatever their cognitive limitations.
At a basic level you get more of what you reward.
Yes promoting a women's vulgar political commentary is inherently feminist but at least the RW aren't racing to see who can throw her under the bus fastest.
She lost her job but it seems the RW will support the lost income which is what the left has done for years for their own that take flak.
I don't know who won the sundress wars because I'm not gonna read a 5,000 word Zero HP dissertation on it. I will say though, that sundresses are good. Generally.
If that's the conclusion everyone finally came to then, welcome to the right side of history.
For Teddy Roosevelt, I think he's one of the best figures of American History.
He gets a lot of hate from the right for the establishment of national parks, though.
(And also for being a bit of a larping cowboy).
I think there's validity to the criticisms. But also believe that the preservation of nature and our natural resources is important.
Most people on the right seem to recognize this on a fundamental level - the pictures of women in sundresses are running through grassy fields, not dystopian techno hellscapes - but I'll leave it to smarter people than me to flesh out that argument without sounding like Greta Thunberg.
Use the Hapsburg rule of thumb. The Hapsburgs thought the preservation of forests was important, so it’s a good position.
Are people really so desperate to not sound leftist that they're against our national parks? One of the greatest remaining things about this country that sets it apart? My contempt could not be greater.
Btw, HPZero's final dissertation was that it was a a really awesome and useful idea to burn women alive as witches like they did in the 17th century. Because that probably put some healthy fear in them and then maybe they'd be more willing to wear the clothes men want them to. And that maybe if a few hundred women got burned alive by furious masses now and then, they'd stop being so mean. One might think that's a snarky or strawman summary, but that was his actual point.
As a Brit, I am extremely envious of your national parks, and had I many more years to go, I'd try to visit them all. We only really have the Highlands of Scotland, which are nice but a bit samey.
As everyone properly should be! They're the glory of this country. I'm actually sickened to think anyone could have a problem with them, just to try to distinguish themselves (as a blackhearted jackass, apparently).
Lmao, thanks for the breakdown.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the policy of burning women alive.
100% with you on the parks though. Protecting the country and our culture goes hand in hand with protecting nature and our parks.
I do think at least some of it is related to sort of Bundy Ranch type things.
That's sort of where I'm not well informed, the pros and cons of having people graze cattle on federal public land or w/e. But I naturally lean towards like.. if we let people just do what they want I'm almost 100% positive someone will come along and fuck it up.
But at the same time - is there bloat in organizations like the bureau of land management? idk, probably. But not really close to my list of important issues.
The ranchers all get to use massive amounts of land for practically free, and for FAR LESS than private land owners charge. Most of the non-BLM land out west is owned in huge tracts by billionaires like Ted Turner, and they don't just let people graze for pennies like BLM does -- they either prohibit grazing/fishing/hunting entirely or charge more than ten times as much.
The ranchers like Bundy huge crybabies who are all subsidized by the federal government yet they never stop complaining. For reference, in 2023 the cost for a grazing lease per Animal Unit Month (one cow or five sheep) was $1.35 for BLM land, about $7.00 for a state lease, and $19.00 on private land. And the BLM grazing program operates at a loss because they take in so little in fees, but god forbid if you ever try to slightly increase the rate to anything approaching market terms, the ranchers all go insane and pull a Bundy and threaten war. The taxpayers basically pay to subsidize the ranchers to be able to graze almost for free, on land they could never afford. Or at least, for 1/20th what they'd pay if Ted Turner or Harrison Ford or Schwarzenegger or the other rich dudes who own all the land in Idaho and Wyoming would charge them.
It's really a grotesque example of people who are completely subsidized by the government yet constantly bitching about it because that's what happens when you enable entitlements, I guess. They're the white western version of a welfare queen who claims the government is against her and she's oppressed.
Lmao. Go off.
You're 100% right though, and I'm happy to hear other people say this on the right.
It's interesting to me how people can fully get away with being a complete government teat sucking person whose entire life depends on subsidy, so long as you wear a cowboy hat while doing it. People pay a lot more attention to the symbology and aesthetics than they do the economics. It's a pretty good racket.
I’ve never seen anyone on the right tear him down for creating national parks.
As a conservative, I hope “conservative art” would not be some kind of exclusive category. How about just art? And let it stand on its own merit or fall where it may. Otherwise it’s really just another form of propaganda. And I’ve had enough of that.
For decades "art" has generally been leftists trying to be edgy and transgressive with little to no effort at creating beauty or finding truth. And they've been gatekeeping the shit out of it. An artist who just creates beauty for its own sake thus becomes "conservative" by default.
Man, the discourse has really sucked this year. Every other week the topic revolves around women.
We love our foids, don't we folx
As soon as foids discovered the online right, they were bound to make it about themselves. It's so over
I loved Twitter Likes because it helps you understand what content a poster you like enjoys, without forcing you to follow every single one of that poster's follows. It serves a lot of the same purpose of this here NRP substack.
Speaking of which, substack has never allowed you to see who likes any post, including your own. You have to go back through notifications to figure out who likes your stuff, and you can never see who likes anyone else's comments.
I just checked and apparently you can see who liked the Substack Essay, but you can't see who liked the comments. Maybe that's okay.
NRP, you probably already know Drukpa on Xitter but I laugh out loud at his stuff. AI generated songs, posters and all kinds of things.
yeah, we've poasted a bunch of his stuff
If the DR was the Death Star, attractive women would be its fatal flaw. Only instead of being an overlooked little exhaust port somewhere, the flaw is more like a giant unstable nuclear reactor covering every square inch of the surface. And there's a nearby space billboard saying, "Shoot here to blow up," and it's pointing to the entire Death Star.
Also:
So when a lifelong crack addict and career felon rapes and murders a random woman, this is bad.
But when thousands of women were agonizingly burned to death, this was... good?
I feel like there may be a flaw in the theory, somewhere.
I got zero sympathy for her, she’s an adult and knowingly cussed while bending over to give a view down the valley. She knows what she’s doing, cancellation was what she wanted and it’s what she got. Who cares? She should be beholden to her own actions, as all know the left will cancel any who utter the N word.
She was daring them, they did and then folks cry, not a hill worth dying upon not if you believe in personal responsibility.
why are you so willing to enforce what the left wants?
I'm not willing to, I'm just holding her to account and saying let's let her drown in her own stupidity. There are more important battles to fight, why waste the effort and energy fighting this one when we should be fighting to restore things like the Bible in school, fighting to renew Church attendance, fighting to secure better literature in schools, fighting to market new creatives who love their art and God. Why fight for a woman who is seeking attention and just using us? What's the difference between her and an OnlyFans girl?
“I'm just holding her to account” You judged her according to leftist criteria and you found her guilty and deserving of punishment.
Sure I did (sarcasm), and you're guilty of poor literacy skills. I hold her to account as a human being, you don't poke a stick at a bear then get to act shocked when it tears off your head.
TonyZa, I find her guilty of suffering the consequences of her own actions, she wanted clout and she got it. She poked a bear for attention and got it, no need to enable her or to support what she did.
If the left wish to devour her let them, it was a risk she took in her quest for internet fame/narcissism. Let's not pretend she's some hero or martyr, or as though we have any obligation to her.
Why defend a female Nero, when we ought to be looking to safeguard Vespasianus? Leave her to the wolves she tempted happily and eagerly. We've bigger fish to fry.
But I weary of this argument, you know I'm right, I know I'm right. There's no further point to this, I won't be biting any more of your bait and attempt to capture my attention.