I happen to like the Z man blog, especially his Friday podcast which I highly recommend, and usually his posts are insightful, witty and thought provoking. And he has one of the most simple, yet coolest logos.
But sometimes I happen to disagree with reasons to do so or feel he doesn't connect all the dots he sets out and follow it through to its logical conclusion. And sometimes he writes a post that I think to be a clunker- but not this particular one. After all, when blogging every day, it's just not possible to hit one out of the park each and every time. Once in a while, we all have bad days.
So as the Z man says: let's get started.
Let me just say from the outset that the problem with the right is the people of the right. That is as the right consists of people who tend away from a central ideology and more into individual positions, guiding philosophies and preferences there will never be a single set of principles upon which they all agree nor a single (or even a small group of) thought leader around which the masses or righists will coalesce.
This is the single greatest reason why all sects of the right from the just right of center mainstream conservatives all the way out to the extreme right of libertarian anarchists have been as ineffectual at combating the advance of the left for the last century. We can all agree with the problems of the left and the wider trouble they've caused for society but we can't agree on a coherent strategy, let alone propose a solution, to counter it. Instead, when not debating how many social justice warriors can dance on the head of a pin in our respective monasteries, we attack anyone except our own group for their failures and ineffectiveness. Clearly counterproductive, but hey, we're the American Right. We live for this.
Worse, we take to moaning about how things are so out of control we cannot vote our way out of it and how it's all the fault of democracy, the constitution, the Jews, big corporations/banks, big this or that, big anything, yada, yada, yada. Big is bad because... reasons. Peddling despair porn and crank conspiracy theories isn't going to change a damn thing. Besides, the dissident right can't or won't even try.
Many are all too ready to give up and run away to some mystical Galt's Gulch where we can create perfect small communities of like-minded folks. All too delusional to realize the religious zealot nature of leftist SJWs means they will ruthlessly hunt down and destroy any such enclaves for the heresy of opposing their one true political belief system and even more heinous in their eyes, creating a better society than theirs. Or that moderate urban liberals, escaping the negative consequences of their own voting and policy choices, seeing a better, culturally and economically functional community will enter it, forcing their way in if necessary, bringing the baggage of their liberal ideas and voting patterns with them. Infecting and destroying these communities like a virus and no matter how many places the liberal eventually burns to the ground, he'll never understand why nor will he stop. The liberal will simply look for the next place to infest just as the SJW will never stop hunting witches even if he must create them himself.
Those who favor Galt's Gulch or Galt's Abby, will never understand this. For though they may repudiate libertarianism now, they were obviously libertarians or Randian objectivists once before (or at least fellow travelers), and as apostates from those sects, still cling to a simplistic non-aggression principle as well as their hopeless quest for the Holy Grail of a utopia with a perfect political system.
Much the same regarding the other "we have to separate" "secession now" crowd like the neo-confederates who have a similar angels and devils viewpoint and utopianist outlook as the far left but for diametrically opposite reasons. When in doubt, retreat into a fantasy world and re-write history so great-great-great grandpa wasn't a racist (whether he was nor not, it doesn't matter, who cares anymore) and the civil war he fought wasn't mostly about slavery and the political and economic hegemony of the southern planter oligarchy. This and where to separate from what as there are not any clear lines of demarcation nor will the federal government allow it to happen as it is a sign of weakness on the international stage. And again the seperatistas cling to the non-aggression principle in thinking other world powers will quietly sit on the sidelines and passively watch which is completely delusional.
We moan about everything except our own inertia, refusing to actually confront the left for fear of legal trouble and bad optics, or how we make absolutely no inroads into influencing the wider culture around us because they won't join our exclusive libertarian apostate coffee klatches. Then can't understand why we fail, or would if most of us were introspective enough to recognize our own failings rather than blaming the "system".
This post from the Z man clearly illustrates this thesis. I'll cut to the chase: It ain't democracy at fault, it's the people.
Once again, for the 876th time, the Z man blames the concept of democracy for all our present woes and is singularly unable to understand that all models of governance are inherently flawed and have all failed at some time in the past. Z simply either refuses or cannot see the human element is the common denominator in all societal problems and failures of all systems of governance. It's the fault of the system, man, like what else could it be? Democracy sucks! Big is bad!
Even in a comment in a previous post of the Z blog where I specifically made this argument in brief, there was no response. Any more than in after acknowledging the failure of mainstream conservatism to conserve the women's bathroom (a favorite trope of the alt and dissident right) asking the Z man when was it that the dissident right restored the sanctity of the women's restroom from men in sundresses. And by the way, Z man, I got it that democracy sucks and conservatism failed (repeated for the 983rd time) the first time around. Got it, roger, wilco, dude.
However, the point of posting was not to be snarky or shitpost but in the former case, raise a legitimate point and in the latter make the point that criticism is fine where warranted but maybe the critic should in the very least have an actual, workable, plan to reverse the bathroom situation. People in glass houses and whatnot.
No answer because neither the Z man or the regular commenters have an answer. It's easy enough Monday morning quaterback, to criticize others for dropping the ball, but much harder to solve the problem which makes this attitude kind of lame. If the same criticism is repeated ad nauseam with out some success to show, or at least a proposed solution on the part of the critic, it becomes pathetic. However, I digress.
The chain of logic here is simple: People as a group form a culture from which the political model of governance is derived. Politics is downstream of culture. I'm pretty sure the Z man has mentioned this before.
I will give this concession to the Z man's basic point: Down the years, culture and politics may influence each other, at least in a democracy, which causes changes to both over time. This can be both good and bad: Good in that it allows the government to change along with the population over which it governs, staying in touch and relevant. Culture, even in a homogeneous society can change over time, faster in a civic nationalist model. Bad if native cultural institutions like the church and family are allowed to be systematically destroyed and the settled communities replaced with a more transient populations. Cultural institutions and settled communities form standards of acceptable behavior (which the Z man writes often about) which by providing moral guardrails outside government acts a governor on the cultural-political feedback loop and keep the machine of society from overspinning and flying apart.
Hint: We need the moral guardrails. Fat, fedora wearing neckbeards attached to our side, flogging their daddy issues through their militant atheism and jihad against all things Christian aren't helping.
Now the Z man does make mention of getting the culture right and politics being downstream of culture so he has all the points but somehow doesn't seem to connect all the dots nor does he propose any solution other than some references to how a hereditary aristocracy could be better than democracy or a constitutional republic. He sees the human element as the weak link in the chain but does not grasp the implications.
We get the form of government that we are able to live with. If not, ask hereditary aristocrats like Charles II, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette and autocrats like Tsar Nicholas II what happens when the aristocracy becomes too isolated and alienated from their masses of subjects.
Now hereditary aristocracy would be a workable model if we consider that the waves of third-worlders, fleeing their own failed states and banging down the doors to get into this inherently unjust and racist country to be the future majority who are accustomed to and by nature prefer strongman dictatorships. This ignores the fact that we already have a de facto hereditary aristocracy in the political and upper bureaucratic managerial classes.
As an aside, this crop of wannabe aristocrats are essentially bureaucrats and elected functionaries, people of empty words and meaningless gestures, not leaders and certainly not strong people. Far too beholden to the rhetoric and dogma of their progressive liberal ideology not to embrace and lavish praise upon their third world and identity/grievance group pets to the detriment of their own people (whom they view as potential rivals and threats to their power). And are too arrogant to realize that as they promote their pets, said pets will want to take power for themselves. Our rulers will not have the strength or will to stop their third world/coalition of fringe freaks from overthrowing them instead of the one-eyed apparatchik being the king of the intellectually blind. If successful, the new ruling aristocracy of third world/identity grievance groups will create the same failed totalitarian state from which they fled and by nature, be unable to maintain. Hereditary aristocracy is as much a failure as democracy for the same reason.
Hereditary monarchies like dictatorships and other authoritarian/totalitarian systems of government based on a rigid, central ideology offer a static and predictable form of governance. If the political, economic or social situation becomes untenable, they cannot by nature and design change without complete overthrow of the leadership or the entire system itself. There is otherwise no hope of change. A situation usually leading to a civil war.
A democracy for all its flaws does have one thing monarchies, dictatorships or other totalitarian systems do not have: the ability to change for the better as much as for the worse, In that there is always hope that it can be saved.
A constitutional republic tempers the passionate and mercurial nature of the masses while still offering the opportunity to change. It offers a middle ground between the static nature of a monarchy or dictatorship and the gyrations of a democracy. For it too, there's always hope that it can be saved but it would take longer.
If a system was previously successful as the U.S. was and later fails, it's the people that fail in that case. Not the system of governance, constitution or the laws which are just pieces of paper with words written on them. These are inanimate objects, they have no sentience, no agency or ability to compel people to follow them no matter what font or print size was used.
Ultimately, dumb ideas originate with the people, not the social or political system and are either stopped by people or allowed to go forward by people. Not an inanimate social/political convention.
So what needs to be done is to alter the culture to more resemble the past when this country had its greatest successes. Maybe an exact replica of pre-1913 America is not possible or even completely desirable, but some modified version may work. It's far better than the alternative of collapse and civil war and making the good faith effort establishes us on the moral high ground if the shit does hit the fan. To do so, we need to get middle America, Joe and Jane Normie on board with a strategy they can accept. To do this, the right must first learn how to cooperate and work together.
Donald Cavaioli
No comments:
Post a Comment