User talk:Vince Did 7-14

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You seem to be quite interested in defending groypers and their views, and critical of people like Ben Shapiro and TPUSA. I was wondering if you'd be interested in discussing these issues further. A while ago, I set up a Debate page just for that purpose. Here it is. Feel free to add your commentary. ---BernieandTrumpFan (talk) 01:50, November 13, 2021 (EST)

FYI:bot

Hi, I see that the Minuteman bot has been giving you some trouble. Whether or not the quote posted on "Richard Bertrand Spencer‎" is acceptable for this audience, is a question for admins, but is outside the purview of Minuteman's purpose. It shouldn't give you any more trouble, as long as nothing too crazy happens. Apologies for the inconvenience. --DavidB4 (TALK) 19:08, January 28, 2022 (EST)

Oh, yeah, that pesky Minuteman! I get it; the quote is quite vulgar; however, imo it's definitely something important to mention. Vince Did 7-14 Christ Is King! 22:24, January 28, 2022 (EST)

Neocons, Neolibs, and the "Eurasian Balkans"

Good afternoon, Vince. I'm reaching out to you today to discuss the motivations of neocon/neolib foreign policy.

One thing I believe a lot of paleocons get wrong when it comes to critiquing neocon/neolib foreign policy is that they often neglect to go deep into the geopolitical aspects of said policy. For this reason they end up giving the impression that they are critiquing said policy from a purely ideological standpoint, which ends up turning off many undecideds who could've been persuaded on this highly important issue otherwise. But perhaps you could buck that trend, with my help.

I'll start off that help by asking a single question: Have you ever head of Zbigniew Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard, and the "Eurasian Balkans" theory it emphasizes?--Geopolitician (talk) 16:06, February 13, 2022 (EST)

Haha, good afternoon. My name isn't actually Vince, it's a reference to paleocon Vince Dao. No, I haven't read the book in question. What's it about? I'd also like to better understand your first point; why are we turning off undecideds by criticizing neocon/neolib foreign policy? From what I can tell, our main criticism is of interventionism and endless war, which have proven to have horrible repercussions. Vince Did 7-14 Christ Is King! 18:17, February 13, 2022 (EST)
Wait, so you're not Vince Dao? No joke, no sarcasm, I literally thought you were. Ah, well. I'll continue this conversation anyway.
So to clarify my first point, I was arguing that many undecideds see only ideological arguments within paleocon critiques of neocon/neolib foreign policy, and that they are left unpersuaded for precisely that reason. The only things they seem to get out of those critiques are "George Washington wouldn't want this," and "this is not in our national interests, whatever they are."
The keys to overcoming this impasse are as follows: (1) State our core national interests, which are to secure our borders and ensure that our neighbors are not controlled by hostile entities; (2) Identify the geopolitical goals of the neocons and neolibs, which by the way are not "to spread democracy" or "to spread liberalism," but rather the goals set up Brzezinski in his book; and (3) State why neocon/neolib foreign policy interferes with our ability to either protect our borders or keep our neighbors friendly. And as a bonus, it would be preferable to state why neocon/neolib foreign policy is morally objectionable, which by the way it is, for reasons I'll elaborate upon when I explain the "Eurasian Balkans" concept (I'll get to that later tonight; I gotta get back to watching the Super Bowl. Go Bengals! :)--Geopolitician (talk) 21:05, February 13, 2022 (EST)
Alright, I'm back. Bengals lost, by the way.
So, the idea that neocons/neolibs' sole foreign policy goal is "spreading democracy" is totally false. In reality, their true foreign policy goal is to maintain the unipolar world order brought about by the collapse of the USSR. The two big "gurus" of this geopolitical movement are Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger. Both Brzezinski and Kissinger have maintained the opinion that the key to ensuring an eternal, American-led unipolar world order is to ensure that no other power dominates the "Eurasian Heartland." A premise originally coined by Halford Mackinder in 1904, the "Eurasian Heartland" theory maintains that Central Asia is the most strategically important region in the world, because whoever controls it is in the best position to control the "World Island," the Afro-Eurasian supercontinent which contains the majority of the world's resources and the world's people.
In 1997, Brzezinski published The Grand Chessboard, which promotes an updated version of the "Eurasian Heartland" theory known as the "Eurasian Balkans" theory. "Eurasian Balkans" theory maintains that "Eurasian Balkans" is the epicenter of the global power void caused by the collapse of the USSR. Thus, the primary goal of American foreign policy must be to ensure American domination of the region. This region consists of: Afghanistan, Central Asia, eastern Turkey, most of the Caucasus, northern Iran, and the Xinjiang region of China. A map detailing the scope of the region is attached here. In the same chapter, Brzezinski identifies seven potential foils to neocon/neolib aspirations in the region: China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine. Notice any patterns yet?--Geopolitician (talk) 22:33, February 13, 2022 (EST)
Putin uses the 1998 bombing of Belgrade which was not authorized by the UN to bash NATO. So beware; citing this book sets you up as a Putin stooge. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 19:11, February 13, 2022 (EST)
That's too funny! But no, not actually Vince, simply a fan. We do have quite a bit in common, though; we're close in age, our birthdays are close together, we both live in Florida (though I have the flex of being a Floridian from birth). Unsurprisingly, Vince was actually my first real redpill, turning me from a naive TPUSA normie to a based AF Groyper.
Your points make total sense to me. It's common knowledge that these wars are not to "sPrEaD dEmOcRaCy" or whatever. They want to wave their Globohomo "FrEeDoM" flag over the entire world, be it Afghanistan (and we saw how that turned out) or Ukraine. It's clear that the only reason they psyop about Russia Russia Russia so much is because they know that Russia's one of the few countries not in the club. The only way we can effectively fight the NWO/globalists is with a full rejection of not only their policy, but of their pretentious rhetoric in all its forms. America is not a "democracy", not only because we've been actually a constitutional republic this entire time, but also because this longtime NWO subversion of U.S. politics, in many cases, creates a no-win scenario. You reject the Democrat's agenda, so you back the Republican; but the Republican is acting on the same agenda, just more dishonestly; so you back the "based" Populist Inc. Republican instead, but even he's in the club. It creates the illusion that it's inevitable. It's not.
Personally, I think that our participation in "optics" is actually hurting our movement. How are we to make our ideas and goals mainstream if we can't even say them outright? To an extent, I get it. Redpills don't happen immediately; they're generally pretty gradual. But eventually we're gonna have to start saying it like it is; otherwise we're gonna get even more grifters. Vince Did 7-14 Christ Is King! 14:21, February 14, 2022 (EST)
You don't understand. It's not about ideology; it never was about ideology. It was always about power. That's why even many MAGA conservatives believe in treating countries like China, Iran, and Russia as the enemy. They don't care that those countries also hate the Washington establishment; they want to America to be the alpha male who beats any country that dares to pursue an independent foreign policy into submission.
The really sick part of it all is that the central motivation for these people seeing China, Iran, and Russia as existential threats is their mere geographic location. As if they have no right to their own territorial integrity. And the degree they are willing to demonize those countries over their mere geographic location is bone-chilling. Some of the worst of this demonizing rhetoric can be found in Brzezinski's book, which openly compares the people of that region to "barbarians" who must be forced into giving tribute or be destroyed. The intensity of this hatred falls only slightly short of that of Hitler in Mein Kampf. That's how deranged these people really are.--Geopolitician (talk) 22:55, February 14, 2022 (EST)
I agree with what you're saying. I wish people would drop this annoying Cold War mindset that they're so fervent about. That being said, in a way it is ideological. Paleocons are big on isolationism, and if American politicians were less hawkish and more isolationist, we wouldn't be so hell-bent on competing and dominating on the world stage. That's my point; this hunger for power is, in a sense, ideology. Vince Did 7-14 Christ Is King! 16:31, February 15, 2022 (EST)

Rubio

Why do you have him voted out after the 114th Congress? [1] He served in the 115th, 116th, and 117th Congresses, as well. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 17:52, March 13, 2022 (EDT)

That wasn't me who did that, it never said he was; the edit you're referencing is just me rearranging the already existing cat's and adding another. Add them. Vince Did 7-14 Christ Is King! 18:45, March 13, 2022 (EDT)
Well if you are going to mass update and maintain articles, don't do a half-baked job of it. Your work looks partisan, attacking people for being neocons, etc. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 19:06, March 13, 2022 (EDT)
Well, what's wrong with attacking neocons? Isn't it part of our job as authentic conservatives to attack neocons? Vince Did 7-14 Christ Is King! 18:00, March 14, 2022 (EDT)
I'm talking about a maintenance task. Why, are you saying you use maintenance chores to deliver partisan attacks? 19:36, March 14, 2022 (EDT)
I'm not sure I understand. Vince Did 7-14 Christ Is King! 12:25, March 15, 2022 (EDT)
I was discussing maintaining and updating articles. Rather than address the subject, you took the bait I dangled and wanted to debate the pros and cons of a partisan issue. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 12:28, March 15, 2022 (EDT)
I gave you a soft heads up regarding bias. You immediately jumped to one side. The problem is, your bias only attacks Republicans. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 12:36, March 15, 2022 (EDT)
Well, why "dangle bait" at all? Why not just be straightforward about it? Is your issue with my bias being too critical of Republicans, or the way I update articles? Or both? I apologize if I'm aggravating you with my confusion, but you seem to be going off in multiple directions here. How about this? Tell me exactly what you're trying to say, and be very specific. No bait-dangling, just explain to me what you mean. From what I understand (and please do correct me if I'm wrong), you're saying that the way I edit articles contains too much biased criticism of Republicans. Vince Did 7-14 Christ Is King! 16:50, March 15, 2022 (EDT)
I'm saying your categorization schemes are essentially maintenance tasks. I suggested that in performing these maintenance tasks, they should not be done in a incomplete, half-baked, partisan manner leaving it to someone else to finish. They should be updated and complete, and not appear to be the work of a subversive partisan attempting to divide the Republican party. You're quick on the draw to update the article when some member of the GOP makes a statement about foreign intervention, or reverses him/her/their selves, and this obsession doesn't carry over to Democrats. Fine. I'm just asking that when you begin a task, to have the courtesy to other editors, and to our readers, to finish it. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 19:18, March 15, 2022 (EDT)
Let's take Rubio, for example. And let's further suppose that you are a DNC operative trying to infiltrate and subvert the conservative movement by attacking Rubio. So, now when the reader sees that Rubio is a neocon, and that he likely was voted out in the 114th Congress, doesn't that subvert your whole purpose? If the guy indeed is a dangerous neocon who needs to be removed, stressing that he's a sitting member of Congress would fulfil the task. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 19:29, March 15, 2022 (EDT)
Ah, okay; thank you, that makes a lot more sense. I see what you mean. I don't know much about which Congresses are which, so I'll have to do more research on that area when editing. Thanks for the tip. And for the record, I am not a DNC operative trying to infiltrate and subvert the conservative movement. If I was, I probably wouldn't have started here on CP. I'd probably be working for the Patriot Front or the Proud Boys or something like that; they seem to have infiltrated those pretty effectively. Vince Did 7-14 Christ Is King! 21:15, March 15, 2022 (EDT)

Keep up the Good Work!

You're not alone here. I too am being pushed around here for "talking too much" about neocons and other RINOS. Keep up the good work! --Geopolitician (talk) 01:11, April 21, 2022 (EDT)

Thank you very much! AF is inevitable! o7 Vince Did 7-14 Christ Is King! 09:52, April 23, 2022 (EDT)
You're welcome. RobS can kiss our asses.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:39, April 23, 2022 (EDT)
Based!! Vince Did 7-14 Christ Is King! 17:24, April 26, 2022 (EDT)
Gosh, he's getting even worse. Check Talk:Neoconservatism. Now he's trying to sound badass lmao. Reminds me of Richard Spencer trying to "own" conservatives on Twitter. It's just sad. Vince Did 7-14 Christ Is King! 10:23, April 28, 2022 (EDT)