Sunday, January 12, 2020

A Critique of the American Right Strategy (or Lack Thereof) Part 2: Cranks and Bad Ideas

To start to change American culture, we need to gradually sway the majority, the great middle of the population over to our side. To do so we not only have to convince them not only that the left has consistently lied about and slandered the right, nor only the right has the better ideas but that the right's ideas are palatable to Ozzie and Harriet Normie. To even start on this task, the right needs to get its act together first.

First, what are we on the right offering as an alternative to the present authoritarian managerial state and globalism.

Mainstream conservatism has so far only ran away from confronting the left when these so-called conservatives are not gradually accepting leftist and liberal ideas. In the last 25 years or so, there has been an increasing number of "the conservative case for" various liberal social and cultural cause du jour be it same sex marriage, open border immigration, globalist "free trade", etc. emanating from sites like NRO and the like. The bright boys at the American Conservative have even managed to concoct a "conservative" case for Andrew Yang's Universal Basic Income. So Conservatism Inc. has finally managed to outdo themselves transcending being mere mealy-mouthed moderate sophists and 1960's vintage liberal Democrats into going to the left of Hilary Clinton. Closet leftists like these should just come out and say 'hi' to Bernie, comrade fake American Conservative.

Then there's the other guys. When will some in dissident righters and alt-righters ever give up on this ludicrous dream of establishing some kind of hereditary aristocracy presumably to include the middle class Izod set due to their superior genetics that can perpetually supply descendants likewise with superior genetics? Yes, all available data shows IQ is strongly correlated with heritable genetics and the average IQ of a population determines the success or failure of a modern technological/industrial state. Yes there is such as a thing as race and there is a difference in average IQ between the races. Natural selection and bio-diversity is as real for us humans as it is for any other life form on the planet. But as the old saying in breeding thoroughbred race horses goes: Breed the best to the best and hope for the best.

In Europe and North America, the hereditary aristocracies as absolute rulers model failed and did so for reasons that would still hold true today. A dynasty can produce a philosopher king Marcus Aurelius in one generation and then can produce a decadent Commodus or Caligula in the next. There is no guarantee how good the monarch would be from one generation to the next. Worse is that a bad absolute monarch with no check upon his power can do much harm to their nation. They cannot be voted out of office or removed short of overthrow with a new dynasty established usually only after a messy civil war. Further, a hereditary aristocracy over time will develop the same attitude of contempt that gradually develops into fear and hatred for the commoner masses over which they rule just as the ruling class has for us today. The same dynamic of the aristocracy growing socially and culturally isolated from the people they govern would happen again as it did in late 18th century France. Just as our ruling class here today is. Only now there is still a remote possibility of forcing change through elections over some election cycles and a remote possibility is better than no possibility.

More, an aristocracy really does not care about their peasant masses as anything more than dray animals that perform menial tasks and contribute to their better's wealth the romanticized polemics of Mencius Moldbug and other supporters not withstanding.

The aristocracy has personal ownership and interest in his country and nation more like a farmer has over his land. But like the farmer, the aristocrat in the end is interested in the profits for himself, not in the welfare of his livestock beyond basic maintenance and their utility. The aristocrats of the early 20th century first world war had no qualms about sending thousands of peasants over the top of the trenches in mass human wave assaults knowing most of them would be slaughtered by opposing machine gun fire. And they continually used this meat grinder tactic over and over during the course of the war as that's what their dray animals are for- to either be used up in service or to die for King and Country. The old, forever colonialist wars in the "Great Game" of yesteryear are the same as the never ending wars started by the ruling class today and we should think a new master monarch will be better than the old master.

Further, the supporters of this idea never seem to have any clue as to how to implement it. Do we vote for our king or will someone graciously step up to fulfill the role after the great cataclysmic economic and political crash and the survivors then vote on it or just accept the pretender to the throne and bow to their new master? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

It's a bad idea that Joe and Jane Normie will never support even if they are peasants who want a master. Normies of today in the U.S. still want to feel they have some kind of control over the system through the ballot box real or imagined and are loath to give up their illusions. Besides, we already have virtually a hereditary managerial aristocracy and it looks like the dissident and alt right supporters of aristocracy are only complaining that it's not them in charge of it.

The peasantry normally prefers the devil they know to the devil they don't know so for the foreseeable future, normies are not going to flock to your neo-aristocracy banner. So let's drop this aristocracy thing already because the idea completely sucks.

To take another tact of declaring no plan, blueprint or even hinting at some vague suggestion of what comes next should the left cause political and economic collapse will convince nobody of the wisdom of this nihilistic lack of strategy but other right anarchist loonies. Who, with even half a brain in their head, can take seriously anyone who suggests that after the train wrecks, they'll jump out of the wreckage unscathed and will somehow rebuild...something or other...and everything will somehow turn out just fine. It's a silly rehash of the Underpants Gnome business model of
               1) let society crash and burn or actively promote it by supporting the most insane leftist                           Democrat
               2) ???
               3) Create a better society.

Even the most deluded leftist has a plan, bad as it is, and anyone with even half a brain in their head could see just how inane this is. Normie will stay the present progressive course even if he realizes how bad it is for him because even a bad plan is easier to sell or follow than no plan at all.

But hold on! Some on the right do have a sort of plan! Secession! The dissolution and breakup of that big bad United States of America! Or plan 'B' of scampering off to rural or suburban safe spaces where they may peacefully live a version of Galt's Gulch or Galt's Abby for followers of the Z man. Well, it would be a sort-of Ike's America but the U.S. constitution has to go because it failed like democracy so something or whatnot that will be perfect and ideal will somehow appear to replace it. What, you may ask? If you gotta ask, then you're just not "with it" and the details will be later worked out in an ad-hoc meeting of the secret handshake society whose assemblage is in the process of being planned.

All this is motivated by what's essentially a puerile wail of "mommy, the constitution and democracy aren't perfect! They're broken! take them away !" combined with a pythonesque "run away!" strategy without a blessed clue as to what to do next. Once again, libertarians, the dissident, and alt-right (both libertarian or Randian apostates or heretics id not simply disgruntled liberals) are back to using the Underpants Gnomes as consultants. What could possibly go wrong?

Let's take plan 'B' first:
One would need to be denser than lead not to understand that if people on the right were to form their own enclaves that the left would see them as dangerous covens of witches that must be destroyed before they summon the White Supremacist Satan and conquer the world and do some sort of bad stuff. Waco, Texas  anyone?

Guys, the left will never let this happen if not with active attack then by forcefully imposing diversity or by gradually having liberal refugees from blue cities sleaze their way in and bring their progressive voting patterns with them. Oh, so you think you can stop this from happening? Look what's happening to Texas, it'll happen to all new Galt's Gulches too. They'll even demolish the Z man's Galt's monastery as well. Nobody will be immune. You can run but you can't hide and eventually, there will be no places left to run to. Muh non-aggression principle will not save you.

No fight was ever won by retreating in the face of the enemy and ceding territory to the enemy. That's the definition of losing that even the most apathetic dullard can clearly see and understand and nobody ever supports a loser. White flight has already left urban population centers in the hands of the progressive left and their ever growing legions of foreign mercenaries which was and is a serious and possibly fatal mistake. A mistake that should not be further exacerbated but rather reversed by moving to and re-taking the cities. That is, if some inferiority complex addled neurotics on the right can pull their heads out of their provincial asses long enough to realize it can really happen to them too.

Now there is the secession thing dreamed up by the curmudgeonly neo-confederate wing of the right. Besides being a pathetic attempt to re-write the causes of the civil war as not being over slavery so to prove great-great-great grand pappy wasn't a racist (whether he was or wasn't doesn't matter anymore). It ignores that the federal government or the American people at large will permit this to happen or what the actual odds of success are. The neo-confederates, libertarian apostates in their own right, believe that in civil war, part deux, other world powers will honor the non-aggression principle and not intervene overtly or covertly in backing one side or the other. Foreign intervention would just be immoral and plain wrong. Only the big, bad United States of America, that most evil empire (unlike Vox Day's good People's Republic of China empire) with it's failed constitution is mean and wicked enough to violate the NAP.
Some people really need to get out more.

But to the true believer in secession, it will be a glorious fight with one shot to a power plant transformer that will end with the total destruction of the hated Yankees and their stadium. Then Robert E. Lee will return, riding over the rainbow on a unicorn that pisses mint juleps, and lead them to an antebellum southern utopia. Not a people, economy and country devastated by war where any system of government that would form in the aftermath would most likely be much worse than anything we can have today as is usual in such situations.

That and the foreign government that backed the winner would, of course, expect something in return for their help. The citizens of the newly split apart Neo-Confederate States may not like what their new foreign overlords might expect of them. Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss.

Yeah, okay. Ozzie and Harriet middle American, the people who believe in America as founded and the constitution would just love to get behind that plan. Not! Besides, it's doubtful that most Americans today know much about the civil war other than Lincoln freed the slaves and that to them was a good thing and they would resent any neo-confederate cranks trashing him.

In fact, aside from some neo-confederates, nobody else cares about some war that ended over 154 years ago and could care less about trying to re-fight it. Claims that the present managerial/nanny state was created by Lincoln because he wouldn't let southern 1%er oligarchs take their toys and go home in a hissy fit is unhistorical and false. That and there is no appetite in the general population for even a Hong Kong type of mass protest let alone a civil war. Anyway, this is all academic and history is just boring to normies. You'll never win them over this way by being a history nerd and an obsessive crank.

If anything, this abrasive provincialism and monomanical fixation on single causes for all our troubles (like "it's all the Joos fault") and making enemies of anyone outside of one's own town, the grouches whose country goes no further than the tip of their noses or favorite cause fetish is not only counterproductive but a sure-fire failure. Just as with the "I hate the poh-leese" types where cops are all to be considered the enemies of all the true right crowd, the supporters of 4GW/CW2 would have to be some kind of super ninja warriors to single-handedly defeat all those enemies all by themselves. Although the vast majority of them shy away from any form of public demonstration that might mean a direct confrontation with antifa which would be "bad optics" and they would get into trouble with the law. So these characters most likely only super ninja warriors of the keyboard distinctly lacking a real pair of balls.

Capturing the moral high ground, gaining at least the tacit approval the majority of white middle America should be the primary goal. Not alienating them with crackpot ideas. Then allies are necessary even if we have to make some concessions to agree to disagree over minor differences of opinion, where they live or what job they have. Understand that the enemy who is actively working to destroy you is on the left of the political spectrum, not to the left of you on the right side of the spectrum.

Now a trip to fantasy land:
Even secession (a bad idea but a real possibility) as an idea surpasses the white ethnostate which a single nation/tribe of generic white people which has never existed will be created. Generic whites are cheaper than buying name brand whites I suppose.

That the United States could split apart is a possibility. But this ethnostate nation of white only comes equipped with a virtual plan to plan the final plan to peacefully remove all non-whites from designated white states and create a new, fully assimilated pan-white nation. The exact means by which this is to take place are yet to be determined by Spencer's Underpants Gnome consultants who are still working on setting up step 2 question marks.

Although proponents of the ethnostate are correct about it being more politically and socially stable than multicultural empires, assuming a population with an average IQ over 95. But Spencerian magical thinking has not yet conceived of a means of uniting American whites who come from a number of different European national ancestries which many still cling to. The European Union is having a good deal of trouble doing this now which is why they gave up and began implementing a population replacement plan.

So barring some incredible and as yet unimaginable occurrences, the American white ethnostate is unlikely to come into being without a virtually impossible assimilation into a pan-white monoculture  and some serious bloodshed any time soon if ever. However, considering recent release of Spencer's megalomaniacal rantings in the aftermath of the Unite the Right Charlottsville debacle, the alt-right would appear to be finally dead and buried.

Finally let's look at a revamped, re-imagined constitution 2.0 because you know, constitution 1.0 wasn't perfect and failed to make government people obey it. It boggles the mind how people on the right are quick to accept leftist thinking that if one law or set of rules aren't being followed, the solution is to implement another set of rules or laws. But then again, there are some voices on the right that unthinkingly accept the left's post-modern ambiguity about the left-right spectrum (a previous post on the subject here) as where they come to define themselves on the right as the not-left. Brilliant, no? Leftists use this ambiguity and fuzzy definitions of words and phrases to always tilt the game board in their favor as always being on the right side of history so rightists who fall into the trap of gnostic thinking are inevitably doomed to lose. The right must firmly and logically define itself as a basic principle of attracting more adherents and fellow travelers.

To get back on topic, the reason constitution 2.0, 3.1, etc. is nonsense is that it is naive to think that a political and bureaucratic establishment who didn't follow the old set of rules will now follow the new set of rules. Even with a complete replacement of the political and bureaucratic establishment.

People who espouse this idea are incapable of getting their heads around the fact that it is the human element at fault, not some words written on a piece of paper no matter what font is used or how large the print. Rules and laws only have meaning if first, they are followed or obeyed and second, if violators are caught and held accountable. Demanding new laws or constitutions because the old ones are not perfect and are not being obeyed is too simplistic and utterly childish. More on this can be found in previous posts here and here.

For the dissident right and the alt-right to point out conservative failures is correct and justified. Conservatism has indeed failed. If the conservatives have in fact even failed to conserve the women's bathroom then where are the successes of the dissident right or the alt-right that proves theirs is the better path? Has Vox Day or the Z-man and the dissident right successfully purged the lady's room of men in sundresses yet? Perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones after all or at least get one win on the boards first.

Lawful means of political, social and cultural change and support of the constitution is essential to gaining the moral high ground by exhausting all possibilities of peaceful redress of grievances and if unsuccessful, ensuring this is visible to one and all before more extreme possibilities are suggested.

The cranks need not be completely read out of the movement as long as it is made explicitly clear by them that the kooky ideas they espouse are just ideas being explored, intellectual exercises in debate and what if or simple fun with trolling in the comments section. That these are not serious proposals meant to be real-world, working solutions. But the real disaffected and alienated weirdos looking for someplace to belong should be excluded. Here the Z man makes an excellent point that the right should not just accept anyone who'll join but should take the time and effort to vet newcomers in an effort to weed out the weirdos.

In matters that conservatives must address:
What should be read out of conservatism (and the right in general) are the 1960's type liberals, moderates and leftists who delude themselves that they are on the right. Such characters include the neo-cons, the for-hire conservative inc. grifters and national socialists respectively. What conservatives should also avoid is carrying water for Israeli concerns where they will give their full-throated support for Israel as the Jewish ethnostate and Israeli nationalism then to hypocritically deny and condemn American nationalism and heritage Americans. The Israeli people are more than capable of looking out for their own interests and their own nation and American conservatism should be first and foremost American nationalists.

Whereas it is acceptable and in American interest to view the State of Israel as a United States ally, the sycophantic chants of America's greatest ally and support for American involvement middle-east wars for only Israel's benefit is both nauseatingly unctuous and a waste of blood and treasure.

Overall, this is a matter that the rank and file conservatives who in the comments section condemn the liberal impostors should be better organized at boycotting those publications that publish that sort of drivel. However, the recent groyper rebellion has been having some success in unmasking such liberal wolves in conservative sheep's clothing and other assorted conservative inc. grifters and opportunists. It is a good sign that conservatives are starting to take the initiative in cleaning up the conservative brand and being a youth movement shows it will hold in the long run. But the groypers should be directly labeling neo-cons as liberals and people of the left.

Further, conservatives should let owners/editors of these publications know they get no subscribers or readers unless they clean up their act and read more nationalist, dissident right or paleo/tradcon publications that better reflect their views. For the conservative, this means being more tolerant of views that they may view as too extreme or crankish. If the conservative gives them a fair read with an open mind, then the views expressed might not really be as extreme or crankish then at first blush. If you can agree on at least 80% or 85% with what other bloggers and authors write, then they're worth following.

The right must have a clear definition of itself and needs to be unified in purpose and goals if it is to act as any sort of opposition to the left. The left already has those attributes and that is the primary reason why the left has been so successful in its long march through the institutions. Final political victory still eludes them but while we on the right dither away with silly plots and ideas, attacking one another, the left is still marching towards final victory. But hey, we're the American right. It's what we do.

Donald Cavaioli

No comments:

More old Manhattan colorized

Sorry for another quickie, been busy. Antique radios don't restore themselves and I've got one hell of a backlog to go through. Anyw...