One of the most hilarious and ineffectual attacks Alt-lighters and overall low-hanging-fruit-grabbers like Sargon of Mossad or Paul Joseph Watson (who I bet will start doing it now after Salutegate, if he hasn't already) use on us, is to say that we are just like SJWs but rightwing. You see, deeply caring about issues like the survival and well being of your race and people makes you an SJW too! ("Stormfag is no longer used that much because they finally figured out that we actually like Stormfront). Identity politics is bad, you see, you should be a libertarian and judge everything at the individual level. You should never try to understand groups as things that exist and that people, whether you want them to or not, identify with their groups. There are only individuals.
Thinking about these basically libertarian types reminded me of how I stopped being one. One of the events that cemented my leaving the libertarian camp (besides reading Bulbasaur articles) was that I started to read books on Military Science.
Libertarian and individualistic ideas cannot survive a serious reading of the science of War. For all of its internal logical consistency, the ideas' complete aversion to reality and how humans actually behave are gloriously exposed to the reader. Libertarian cowardice is laid bare. To paraphrase Curt Doolittle on the subject:
Socialists will fight but not compete in the market. Libertarians will compete in the market but not fight. Conservatives will both fight AND compete in the market.
So what we're witnessing with the Sargon types is their complete lack of understanding of war and their cowardice to understand that there is one going on right now (an ethnic war, no less). They want things to just be normal and chill. No identity, no conflict, just, relax man, stop pushing for your people.
What we "SJWs of the Right" are doing, is simply matching (perhaps out-performing) the enemy in their designated fields of attack. It is the aggressor that defines the tactics and intensity of the war, the one that dictates the terms.
Carl von Clausewitz writes in "On War" (emphasis mine):
Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without much bloodshed [...]. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst. The maximum use of force is in no way incompatible with the simultaneous use of the intellect. If one side uses force without compunction, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand.
Mind you, we're not fighting an open physical war yet, but we are fighting an ideological (ethnic) war. The people that won't recognize it as such, or that do, but refuse to engage the enemy in its own terms, will lose.
Moderation fetishists will always lose. It is the the most intolerant who wins. From the above piece, by based Lebanese man, Nassim Nicholas "gas the intelligentsia" Taleb:
It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority.
Intolerant minorities, will impose themselves on tolerant majorities. Every. Single. Time. To avoid such a situation you MUST match their intolerance, or as Clausewitz would say, their war effort:
Let us conjecture that the formation of moral values in society doesn’t come from the evolution of the consensus. No, it is the most intolerant person who imposes virtue on others precisely because of that intolerance. The same can apply to civil rights.
(((Leftism))) (of which SJWs are a part) if undeterred will simply impose itself as the new morality. We can already see this with the implementation of soon-to-be-conservative-value: fag marriage. Remember how impossible it was for gay marriage to be normalized in America less than a decade ago, remember how against it Americans were...until the Left won and then they weren't against it anymore. Again, if you don't match the intensity of the aggressor, you will lose. From the article (added emphasis mine):
Yes, an intolerant minority can control and destroy democracy. Actually, as we saw, it will eventually destroy our world.
So, we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. It is not permissible to use “American values” or “Western principles” in treating intolerant Salafism (which denies other peoples’ right to have their own religion). The West is currently in the process of committing suicide.
Substitute Salafism in the text with any other totalitarian and recalcitrant ideology like Leftism/SJWism, the result/idea is the same: If you don't utterly crush the SJW the SJW will crush you and your world.
I could only wish that the Sargon of Mossads and alt-light people were at least extremist for their moderate views. Then they would match their (and our) enemies. But they're not, their aloof, above it all. They simply make moderation and "centrism" a fetish, but not really something to fight with or go to war for. They simply want things to go back to "normal", they rightly recognize that most normal folk don't really care about extremism at all, people don't like extremists on the left or on the right, so of course they're trying to appeal to that.
Unfortunately, majorities decide nothing, they simply follow with some degree of protest or acceptance whatever the extremes dictate.
So, I guess what I'm trying to say -using the original German- is:
Sieg fucking Heil.