>The place where those nationalist ethics can shine is in the fact that great men need unexceptional men under them as their backbone/foundation.
Nah. What you've said specifically is maybe as wrong as anything ever can be, but the broader idea is wrong too. There's no benefit from labor coming from retards, obviously, duh.
More importantly, irrational actors lead to ugly fucking externalities.
>The concept of "company/community pride" isn't new and should be where most of that energy is directed.
Company/community pride leads to turboniggery like kiking up videogay mods to not work with other videogay mods because you don't like people hurting your feefees, writ large into society with actual consequences. Yeah, let's encourage the formation of ghettos and discriminate against uncle toms, sounds great. Geordies have plenty of families with twenty generations of living and dying in poverty in no small part due to culture despite living in what was the most dynamic and industrious mover and shaker for much of those times.
From first principles, it's totally fucking retarded. Attachment to community is what nigs things up by making them not fungible (hence, incommunicable) and generally detracting from meritocratic (i.e. profit seeking) selection.
>We just don't have church fathers and regional CEOs to look up to any more since everything has been, ironically, nationalized/centralized to a great extent, so everyone turns to the CEOs of Wal-Mart and Space-X and figures like bishops and popes instead of turning their gaze locally where they can make a real difference.
The difference you can make locally by being a bootlicking faggot is purely negative. The fact that you're blowing incense into the air idly (or doing so metaphorically via hero worship over the electric jew) at least means you're doing nothing but wasting your own money. Following retards just because they're local is how you get faggots like >>45348
involved in wars on behalf of someone who's done nothing but drive a nation into deficit, instead of, to use the later friedmann's imagery, leaving the dictator standing alone in a field of empty tents.
>If the legal representation of the RNC up and leaves to form their own party, that means that the uniparty establishment will have to compete with itself while a "new RNC" offers a populist alternative that actually backs measures like removing the Patriot Act and an end to wars overseas.
And won't that just be a repeat of ron paul 2008/2012, i.e. nobody will even hear about the alternative conservative movement?
>Right now America is on the fast-track for civil war before 2030 anyways, so if the establishment RNC isn't willing to kowtow to the new guard, then the entire set of dominoes is going to get knocked down on "our" way out the door
Where the fuck are you pulling any of this from? 2030 seems wildly optimistic for a civil war (when is china collapsing in this fanfiction?)
>which is why the populists want to expand ballot harvesting operations to "bridge the gap" in a way that the RNC can't intervene
How is this going to be sustainable when it's a fucking legal issue and not just the establishment, but the wrong-party establishment control the legal system?
>it's why Dhillon is holding Damocles' sword above their heads by threatening a civil war within the party if they don't either elect her or start making changes. Same way house Republicans have been forcing the establishment to either show their colors next congress and vote Democrat on paper where everyone can see it, or start kowtowing to the populist new guard.
But they'll just ... vote democrat? How is this hard to understand? You're struggling to convince anyone in this thread that's not some kind of extremist or lifelong nonvoter that this legal longwar is even happening or that there's a difference between one republican and the next. What percentage of the voting population will actually, consciously, meaningfully know or care about the hundred thousandth time some senator votes 'against his party' on the latest authoritarian powergrab? <1%?
>It's important to play to win right now, and sometimes principles will need to be violated in order to win
To win what? The principles being violated just implies you'll be swapping some establishment figures for some other, new, establishment figures/controlled opposition. Y'know, people letting in the parts of the people that are just making a power grab since they're reasonable within the system that exists and all. I.e. muh it's more of the same who cares ecks deee. Right? What you've spelt out just now doesn't sound likes it's anything other than forcing the hand of some more people to show that they're blantantly scum, but like, they do that shit on their own all the time. So there's not actually any legal changes or cases that might win because of this, directly, actually on the table, yeah?
Are these voteniggers in the room with us right now?
Did you forget to draw a clock?
Lord Keynes described a system, he did not prescribe it.
Then how do you walk?
Own a house yet, kid?