Regarding working within the system to pursue political solutions to our problems, there are three main views on the Right.
1. Vote for Republicans, because they are not Democrats. Back Republican nominees that are the most likely to win, because "winning" is the most important thing. Supporting some extremist like Trump is a vote for Hillary.
This is the most common view among the mainstream Right. Variations on it are occasionally heard in some areas of the Alt Right as well. This is essentially the Right taking orders from the Left; avoiding topics that the Left declares taboo, affirming a belief in basic Leftist ideals (democracy, equality, social welfare programs, anti-racism), and supporting candidates that the Left finds less objectionable. How's that working for you so far?
2. Worse is better. If you are going to vote, vote for the most deranged Leftists on the ballot. Leftist policies will eventually collapse their own system, as increasing levels of degeneracy wake people up and cause conservatives to revolt.
This is believed by a lot of people, but, I suspect, practiced by very few. This approach has slightly more merit than the first, but I still find it lacking. Leftist nutbags are in some ways the best recruiters for the Right, but I don't believe that enabling the Left will in any way hasten some kind of conservative revolution. Conservatives could have revolted against Leftist policies in almost any decade of the twentieth century, but they didn't, and I doubt that they ever will. Advancing the anti-White agenda seems likely to result in Whites becoming a minority in the US with no hope of recovery, and unlikely to result in an increase of White racial consciousness. If the Federal government started confiscating guns, and began herding Whites into ghettos after seizing their assets for redistribution, there might--might--be a revolution; but it would be a half-assed affair put on by disorganized NASCAR-Americans who can't agree on anything, and would probably fail. Helping the enemy does not help us.
Another possible outcome of "worse is better" is what I like to call the Condor Option; the Leftist government goes full retard, and is then overthrown by a right-wing military coup. Probably the best outcome that could be realistically hoped for, but I wouldn't bet on it happening. I think that the Left is well aware of this possibility, and has been aggressively purging the military of any potential Pinochets. Earlier this year, Army recruits were made to march in red high-heels so that they can better understand the plight of women. Do not count on the military saving us.
3. Working within the system accomplishes nothing. Voting doesn't work. No political candidates represent our views, and no one that does could ever be elected. Working within the system just makes you become the system.
A common view among the edgier segments of the Right, particularly Libertarian/AnCaps, and White Nationalists. This is the worst of these three choices, although I believed it myself for a long time. The appeal of this view is a childish belief that, if there is no silver bullet political solution to our problems, then we might as well not use the system at all. Those who believe this might point out that we should be working outside of the system, to spread information and seek converts. I agree, and I would say that doing what we do on the internet, commenting on articles, engaging in discussion, and producing youtube videos or blog posts and supporting others who do so, accomplishes more than many realize. This is evidenced by leftists whining about how the internet has become a "sewer hole" of right-wing trolls. Intelligent "trolling" and meme warfare is making a difference. The "cuckservative" meme going viral is an example. But refusing to operate within the political system is just ceding ground to the Left for no good reason. The Alt Right will continue to be perceived as maladroit losers until we gain legitimacy through political action. As to the claim that working within the system makes you become the system, that's pretty much the goal, isn't it? Leftist revolutionaries worked within the system, now they are the system.
While the various Edgelords of the Far Right sit around and say that working within the system is useless, Leftists enjoy the full control of all mainstream institutions, from which they dictate public opinion and decide what is allowed to be discussed. The Left achieved this level of control by working within the system. They took control because they are organized, they fight amongst themselves much less than we do, and they play the long game. It took them 100 years to achieve cultural hegemony by the long march through the institutions of power, but they have done it. No, you will never elect an ideal Libertarian, Paleoconservative, or White Nationalist president, or other right-wing flavor of your choosing. Even if you did, it wouldn't fix much; he would still have the rest of the bureaucracy and institutions to contend with. But we must learn to take what small gains we can, and build on them for the long haul.
Some equate working within the system as playing by the enemy's rules. I think that the opposite is more true. The idea that we should refrain from any kind of political action could not be more harmful to the Right if it had been deliberately planted by the Left, which I am not sure that it wasn't. Donald Trump is a good example, sadly perhaps the only example, of someone on the Right who is working within the system without playing by the Left's rules. I won't waste time here going through all of the many legitimate criticisms of Trump; he is certainly not some crusading savior of the Right, nor is he anything remotely resembling a Randian hero of business and commerce. Donald Trump is popular because he said that he would build a wall on the border, and make the Mexicans pay for it, because a lot of Americans on some level want mass immigration to stop. When he is predictably accused of "racism" or attacked in other ways by the Left, Trump does not play by the rules. According to the rules of the Left, when a White cis-het male is accused of crimethink, he is to prostrate himself in shame before the moral authority of the Left, apologize profusely, and beg forgiveness. Trump does not do this. When attacked, he attacks back, and makes his attackers look ridiculous.
Maybe his talk about building a wall is only an empty campaign promise, and maybe his edgy statements about immigration are only a calculated attempt to capitalize on the segment of the population that agrees with them, but in either case it doesn't matter. Trump has already single-handedly moved the Overton Window perceptibly to the right. Intentional or not, genuine or not, Trump is sowing seeds of a rebirth of race realism, White identity and American nationalism. For now, public opposition to mass immigration must be couched in terms of illegal immigration, of drug dealers and rapists coming over the border, but if we can keep the Overton Window moving, eventually the real issue of demographic replacement will come out. This is the kind of goal that we should advance by working within, and without, the system. Even if he isn't elected, Trump is useful to our cause.
Much of what is wrong with the Right is due to the combination of the three attitudes listed at the beginning of this piece. At the same time, I think that there is an element of truth in each of them. From the first, we must learn to compromise enough to support political candidates who advance our interests even slightly, even if they do not wholly endorse our ideas, or even disagree with them; i.e. we should use people like Trump, though not be used by them. From the second, we should make the best of our political defeats. As I've already mentioned, Leftists are sometimes the best recruiters of the right. The presidency of Barrack Obama has led to an increased awareness of racial issues pertaining to the perpetual victim status of Blacks; who knows what kind of crimethink might spread should Bernie Sanders become president. A Democrat winning because a slightly edgier candidate took votes away from a mainstream Republican is not as bad as ceding all political representation of the Right to Standard Republican Party cuckservatives. We must occasionally take risks, and make the best of the results. From the third, we should continue the fight outside of the system, which goes without saying. We now live in the Internet Age. Unlike Leftist-controlled television and newspapers, where approved discourse is tightly controlled and any dissent can misrepresented in order to slander the Right, the internet is a more level playing field. The online battle of ideas is more significant than many realize. We are gaining traction in that battle, but we must turn some of that momentum into political power if we are going to prevent the Left from shutting down internet discussion through "hate speech" legislation.
It's a big shit sandwich, and we all need to take a bite.
1. Vote for Republicans, because they are not Democrats. Back Republican nominees that are the most likely to win, because "winning" is the most important thing. Supporting some extremist like Trump is a vote for Hillary.
This is the most common view among the mainstream Right. Variations on it are occasionally heard in some areas of the Alt Right as well. This is essentially the Right taking orders from the Left; avoiding topics that the Left declares taboo, affirming a belief in basic Leftist ideals (democracy, equality, social welfare programs, anti-racism), and supporting candidates that the Left finds less objectionable. How's that working for you so far?
2. Worse is better. If you are going to vote, vote for the most deranged Leftists on the ballot. Leftist policies will eventually collapse their own system, as increasing levels of degeneracy wake people up and cause conservatives to revolt.
This is believed by a lot of people, but, I suspect, practiced by very few. This approach has slightly more merit than the first, but I still find it lacking. Leftist nutbags are in some ways the best recruiters for the Right, but I don't believe that enabling the Left will in any way hasten some kind of conservative revolution. Conservatives could have revolted against Leftist policies in almost any decade of the twentieth century, but they didn't, and I doubt that they ever will. Advancing the anti-White agenda seems likely to result in Whites becoming a minority in the US with no hope of recovery, and unlikely to result in an increase of White racial consciousness. If the Federal government started confiscating guns, and began herding Whites into ghettos after seizing their assets for redistribution, there might--might--be a revolution; but it would be a half-assed affair put on by disorganized NASCAR-Americans who can't agree on anything, and would probably fail. Helping the enemy does not help us.
Another possible outcome of "worse is better" is what I like to call the Condor Option; the Leftist government goes full retard, and is then overthrown by a right-wing military coup. Probably the best outcome that could be realistically hoped for, but I wouldn't bet on it happening. I think that the Left is well aware of this possibility, and has been aggressively purging the military of any potential Pinochets. Earlier this year, Army recruits were made to march in red high-heels so that they can better understand the plight of women. Do not count on the military saving us.
3. Working within the system accomplishes nothing. Voting doesn't work. No political candidates represent our views, and no one that does could ever be elected. Working within the system just makes you become the system.
A common view among the edgier segments of the Right, particularly Libertarian/AnCaps, and White Nationalists. This is the worst of these three choices, although I believed it myself for a long time. The appeal of this view is a childish belief that, if there is no silver bullet political solution to our problems, then we might as well not use the system at all. Those who believe this might point out that we should be working outside of the system, to spread information and seek converts. I agree, and I would say that doing what we do on the internet, commenting on articles, engaging in discussion, and producing youtube videos or blog posts and supporting others who do so, accomplishes more than many realize. This is evidenced by leftists whining about how the internet has become a "sewer hole" of right-wing trolls. Intelligent "trolling" and meme warfare is making a difference. The "cuckservative" meme going viral is an example. But refusing to operate within the political system is just ceding ground to the Left for no good reason. The Alt Right will continue to be perceived as maladroit losers until we gain legitimacy through political action. As to the claim that working within the system makes you become the system, that's pretty much the goal, isn't it? Leftist revolutionaries worked within the system, now they are the system.
While the various Edgelords of the Far Right sit around and say that working within the system is useless, Leftists enjoy the full control of all mainstream institutions, from which they dictate public opinion and decide what is allowed to be discussed. The Left achieved this level of control by working within the system. They took control because they are organized, they fight amongst themselves much less than we do, and they play the long game. It took them 100 years to achieve cultural hegemony by the long march through the institutions of power, but they have done it. No, you will never elect an ideal Libertarian, Paleoconservative, or White Nationalist president, or other right-wing flavor of your choosing. Even if you did, it wouldn't fix much; he would still have the rest of the bureaucracy and institutions to contend with. But we must learn to take what small gains we can, and build on them for the long haul.
Some equate working within the system as playing by the enemy's rules. I think that the opposite is more true. The idea that we should refrain from any kind of political action could not be more harmful to the Right if it had been deliberately planted by the Left, which I am not sure that it wasn't. Donald Trump is a good example, sadly perhaps the only example, of someone on the Right who is working within the system without playing by the Left's rules. I won't waste time here going through all of the many legitimate criticisms of Trump; he is certainly not some crusading savior of the Right, nor is he anything remotely resembling a Randian hero of business and commerce. Donald Trump is popular because he said that he would build a wall on the border, and make the Mexicans pay for it, because a lot of Americans on some level want mass immigration to stop. When he is predictably accused of "racism" or attacked in other ways by the Left, Trump does not play by the rules. According to the rules of the Left, when a White cis-het male is accused of crimethink, he is to prostrate himself in shame before the moral authority of the Left, apologize profusely, and beg forgiveness. Trump does not do this. When attacked, he attacks back, and makes his attackers look ridiculous.
Maybe his talk about building a wall is only an empty campaign promise, and maybe his edgy statements about immigration are only a calculated attempt to capitalize on the segment of the population that agrees with them, but in either case it doesn't matter. Trump has already single-handedly moved the Overton Window perceptibly to the right. Intentional or not, genuine or not, Trump is sowing seeds of a rebirth of race realism, White identity and American nationalism. For now, public opposition to mass immigration must be couched in terms of illegal immigration, of drug dealers and rapists coming over the border, but if we can keep the Overton Window moving, eventually the real issue of demographic replacement will come out. This is the kind of goal that we should advance by working within, and without, the system. Even if he isn't elected, Trump is useful to our cause.
Much of what is wrong with the Right is due to the combination of the three attitudes listed at the beginning of this piece. At the same time, I think that there is an element of truth in each of them. From the first, we must learn to compromise enough to support political candidates who advance our interests even slightly, even if they do not wholly endorse our ideas, or even disagree with them; i.e. we should use people like Trump, though not be used by them. From the second, we should make the best of our political defeats. As I've already mentioned, Leftists are sometimes the best recruiters of the right. The presidency of Barrack Obama has led to an increased awareness of racial issues pertaining to the perpetual victim status of Blacks; who knows what kind of crimethink might spread should Bernie Sanders become president. A Democrat winning because a slightly edgier candidate took votes away from a mainstream Republican is not as bad as ceding all political representation of the Right to Standard Republican Party cuckservatives. We must occasionally take risks, and make the best of the results. From the third, we should continue the fight outside of the system, which goes without saying. We now live in the Internet Age. Unlike Leftist-controlled television and newspapers, where approved discourse is tightly controlled and any dissent can misrepresented in order to slander the Right, the internet is a more level playing field. The online battle of ideas is more significant than many realize. We are gaining traction in that battle, but we must turn some of that momentum into political power if we are going to prevent the Left from shutting down internet discussion through "hate speech" legislation.
It's a big shit sandwich, and we all need to take a bite.
No comments:
Post a Comment