The Political Dysphoria of the Trans-Right

 Over the 20th century, Marxists have been successful in establishing themselves as not only the standard bearer of the left, but the very definition of the left itself. Then most other non-Marxist leftists, having accepted the supremacy of Marxism found themselves politically homeless. Many of them being fundamentally post-modernist relied on their tried and true gnostic belief in unknowable truths to redefine themselves as the right. Because after all, in these modern times, the old definition of right and left no longer applies as they argue. There is no right or left as it's now us guys over here on our side of the great debate who think this and those other guys over there who think something else. So if we disagree with the other guys who say they are the left as they understand the term through the personal epiphany of gnosis, then we who disagree with the leftist must be on the right in this exercise. If a group can't define themselves logically and rationally, then that group can fancy themselves to be anything they want but they are really nothing at all. 

And so we have the essence of the trans-right of non-Marxian leftists parading about in right-wing drag. They are easily spotted as they usually spend most of their time bashing conservatives and others on the right and refuse to do anything to really oppose the left other than mildly complain about them. 

And in this, all the trans-right needs to add is using nationalism as a sort of boob job to complete the ensemble. Because, if the Marxian leftist is an internationalist, the those on the right must be nationalist as the right is the opposite of the left.

Further, where the officially recognized leftist is the "I support the current thing" NPC, those who identify as being on the right become a counter-programmed "I'm against the current thing" NPC. Even if there's no such thing as the political left and the right there must be some kind of opposition to those guys over there who think something different from what we think. 

Strictly following either the precepts of a central ideological authority or opposing those who espouse heretical or blasphemous positions for no other reason than it's the views that come from those guys who think different over there is the hallmark of the leftist even if he hates Marx and identifies as a nationalist.

It's all really just pure emoting over words and phrases. Squaring the circle by taking positions based on emotion is exactly what any leftist worth his salt does.

Whereas the leftist current thing is usually based on lies used to promote their agenda, we must still be careful to consider the current thing in context and whether it should be opposed or not based on the facts. Maybe this time the left stumbled onto something that is right because even a broken clock is right twice a day and it would be necessary to deny the left any victory. But not just to deny the left a victory in an issue that is morally and intellectually correct but to expose the left's subterfuge in using the issue to promote their agenda or expand their power. There is more persuasive power in an argument that is true to convince the majority centrist, non-political Joe and Jane Normie to support your cause than a lie hiding the nasty agenda even the normies can see. 

And mostly what the normies need to take a stand, to take action, is to feel that not only are they supporting a position that is justified and true and aligned with their values, but that there are many others out there who also support it. There is strength in numbers.

It's important to for anyone right of center to know who is really on their side and be able to spot and reject the trans-right infiltrator who wears the political right and nationalism like a skin suit to promote their non-Marxian leftist agendas. Just as the Marxian leftists did with liberalism and the Democratic party. Seeing a trend here? More on that in the next post. 

If the right is to have any hope of winning the political and cultural wars, then the non-Marxian leftists, like the left of center moderates and neo-cons must be, disavowed, rejected and expelled from the right. For as they are just as much the enemy as the Marxian leftists.

Donald Cavaioli

A Critique of the American Right Strategy (or Lack Thereof) Part 3

Parts 1 is here and part 2 is here


So I've finally got around to finishing this post which started several months ago and grew to such lengths as I began exploring this idea that I decided to break it into 3 separate walls of text and still feel that there's much I didn't cover properly. And after much editing and re-editing, I still don't think the writing flows smoothly enough and is still missing points I should have made. But as they say- either get down to business or get off the pot so finally I got down to business.

Simply put, the right needs to reach out to and if not attract and convert more moderate middle Americans then to at least have them more sympathetic to the philosophy and goals of the right. For the most part, this means soft-peddling the previously mentioned segments of the right I critiqued rather than completely reading them out of the movement except of course, in extreme cases. Besides the obvious cranks and weirdos, there should be no place for the alt-leftists of national socialism and those who advocate for unprovoked violence against non-whites and starting race wars. The other rightists might still have contributions to make outside of their pet ideas or peeves even if I disagree with some of their positions. The right needs all the allies they can get.  As one last criticism of the alt and dissident right, by reading out the entirety of the conservative movement, are they not as guilty as when they criticize the Buckley conservatives for reading out the John Birchers and neo-confederates? Although Buckley and his NRO followers in the end failed as their critics charge and have in fact shifted into neo-liberalism, imperialism and social and political positions taken by 1950's and 60's Democrat liberals, these people, mostly professional pundits, are in fact, a minority of those who identify as mainstream conservatives. And again I ask the dissident and alt-right (if any still exist unironically) where are your achievements and successes? Did the Z man or Vox Day manage to eject the men in sundresses from out of the women's restroom yet? Still waiting, guys.

Proposed solution:
As conservatism is more familiar to Joe and Jane Normie and if reformed as the groypers attempted, can be valuable as a bridge between the more nationalist dissident right and middle America. That the mainstream rank-and-file conservative might still hold to a civic national/propositional nation of immigrants position, support of President Trump's make America great again more nationalistic position and support for the border wall show an openness to reconsider civic nationalism. They might therefore be more amenable to reason and this line should be pursued which will lead to a realization that its underlying "blank slate" model of humanity is likewise false. It should be stressed that noticing differences between peoples and cultures is not racism or does not necessarily mean one is better or superior to the other but simply acknowledging reality with no hate involved. So rather than recriminations of "boomercons" and further alienating conservatives who might otherwise move more towards nationalism, the dissident right should forego puerile name calling and vapid provincialism and consider forming alliances with them. Nor would it hurt if the conservatives were allowed to retain their own banner rather than forcing them to drop it in favor of identifying only as dissident right or alt-right (of the non-Spencerian flavors). The tact of "you're with us only under our banner (we're number one, huzzah!) and in complete lockstep with us or you are against us" serves only the left's so far successful drive to destroy the disarrayed and atomized right in detail.

Finally, the religion thing must be considered. Although it would set the teeth of right-leaning atheists on edge, there cannot be a strong concept of morality without it. Man will only obey the morality revealed by a power higher than himself as an absolute and eternal truth. This morality adhered to by the people en masse is necessary to the function of a high trust culture under a constitutional republic and a common religion is part of what holds a culture and community together. A strong commonly held moral order along with civic engagement by the average citizen is what keeps government honest by holding the bad guys accountable when found. So let the atheists get over their daddy issues and at least accept and support cultural Christianity even if they do not wish to participate in a religion.

I don't expect these ideas to gain any traction among libertarians, their apostates and heretics in the dissident right and alt-right because of their individualism preferences so a centralized ideology or philosophy around which all can coalesce simply isn't in their natures. Nor the mainstream conservatives who likewise share this individualist bent but are still waiting for permission to reject the failures of civic nationalism and the blank slate theory without fear of being called racist. All in all, the American right has accepted too many of the left's moral premises with elements of the far right viewing themselves as a passive-aggressive antithesis in material dialectics waiting in Galt's Abbey for the crash and the as yet unknowable new synthesis to spontaneously emerge. However, in the meantime, we'll continue to fight more among ourselves rather than the left because, hey, we're the American right. It's what we do.


Donald Cavaioli

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

Part 1- A Critique of the American Right Strategy (or Lack Thereof): The Problem

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 if 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

A Critique of the American Right Strategy (or Lack Thereof): The Problem

A more a general critique on ideas expressed by other folks on the dissident right not any particular blogger, pundit or commenter. I began writing this post last April and over time added to or subtracted from it as I did more research, listened to videos or read various sites trying to find who on the right was actually proposing real world solutions to our current problems we have here in the U.S.
What I found was outside the groypers who represent only a first step in the right direction or Patriot Prayer confronting Antifa which I'm not yet sure if it's worth it or not (but least it's something), there were no other voices who had much more than talk. And the further to the right, the more the talk may have been "don't punch to the right", but they certainly have no compunctions about punching the hell out of anyone to the left of them who are still very much on the right of the spectrum.

Just as predicted that the further to the right one is on the spectrum, the more they mimic the positions of their opposite number on the left, sometimes to the detriment to other factions or individuals not as far right, albeit for the opposite of reasons. Aiding and abetting the left on any topic or issue for any reason is not only wrong, but completely stupid. Never give aid and comfort to the enemy. Especially an enemy who not only will not appreciate it but will not hesitate to destroy you at the first opportunity.

So we are not only ineffective but worse, counterproductive

In short, the problem faced by the American right is twofold: The current American culture and that the American right spends more time attacking each other to the point where most forget about the left, if not tacitly supporting the left by adopting the same positions, albeit for diametrically opposite reasons.

Our current government is in fact a reflection of American culture and the expectations of the American people as much as the United States federal government since the 1930's gradually began to shape the American people. Over time, it becomes a feedback loop without a governor or limiting mechanism which inevitably leads to the system tearing itself apart from its own ever increasing momentum.

One of the greatest flaws of the left is when advocating change is saying we can do something and never considering the question of should we do something. This, in addition to post-modern demolition of any concept of right or wrong and concept of transcendent morality removed any limiting mechanism in progressive lust for change. In doing so, progressive society's changes, based on  vague and amorphous  concepts "fairness" and "justice"begin to cater to more and more extreme fringes, becoming a machine without a governor, spinning ever faster until it flies apart.

In order for the right to make some inroads in pushing back the left, Joe and Jane Normie, white middle Americans who may comprise some 30% to 40% of the population must be convinced not only does the left want them at best gelded drones working and paying for their replacement foreigners' swag or at worst, dead. So we must have the normies swayed over to our side as simply the better heuristically working model. It is important to understand that no model is perfect as no human being is perfect and we should not blithely throw out previously working models in favor of either past failed models or untested new ones. Even if the country cannot be restored to the original founder's ideals, then something that more closely approximates it and that has to be an improvement.

So the concept of transcendent morality found in religion must regain a strong and respected position in society and as well, a stronger sense of settled community. We've become far too transient as a people, moving back and forth for work, younger generations moving far away for college and work to lay down and keep roots in one place.

One of the first issues to tackle is that contrary to the post-war European left's smear propaganda, that nationalism can be a good thing when it opposes imperialism, has respect for other nationalities in their own homelands and understands some nationalities cannot be mixed together without causing conflict. It's OK to be an American and have a real physical definition of who is an American.

This leads to opposing the prevailing "Nation of Immigrants" civic nationalism fallacy. Good borders make for good neighbors and immigration should not only be limited in numbers, but allowed for only for the good of the nation, carefully choosing who to allow in and insist on strict compliance with assimilation or out they go. Eventually, middle America should be shown that it is not at all evil or improper that the U.S. can say no more immigration at all for the time being. It's okay for Americans to think of the U.S. as our country and the government should act in our best interests, not the interests or to the benefit of other people who have their own governments to look after their interests. But this is only the first step. Normie needs to understand that if just anyone can be an "American" just because they drop their bags here then nobody is really an American as the concept no longer has a real definition. Then the new Americans will often be "American" when it's advantageous and then identify as their own nationality when it's convenient. The U.S. becomes nothing more than a giant hotel where the guests look down upon and despise the hotel staff.

Some inroads have been made, the Overton Window has been pushed right but the gains made are shaky and must not simply be preserved but pushed further. Middle America realizes the government and mainstream media has been lying to them and acting contrary to their interests. Nice middle American white people are genuinely dismayed at the incessant trashing they receive as the cause of all non-white woes. Scowling white leftists snarling about the duty of white people to kowtow to and make amends to non-whites for the alleged crimes of the long, dead past and being always told that they are fatally infected with racism and ever worthy of censure. Mr and Mrs Normie deserve the third worldification of the their communities and attendant increase in crime with open immigration and "refugee" resettlement. The karmic scales of justice must be balanced honks the social justice warrior and you'll pay for those crimes you didn't commit and the beatings of normies will continue until their moral improves.

What makes matters worse is a sort of collective "battered wife" syndrome develops where normie, in fear of another beating, tries ever harder to conform to and appease the prevailing progressive identity leftist cultural overlords. There is also Stockholm syndrome playing a part here as well. Overall, traditional or heritage American culture including its religion has been pretty well battered and will be difficult to restore to even a semblance of its former, more functional and successful self. This will take a long time to accomplish and will not be easy but it must be done.

Middle America knows things are going wrong but aren't sure what to do. They wonder how they could be held responsible for past events over which they neither played any part on nor had any control over but they can't articulate why or are too afraid to. The American right must provide not only sound reasons to oppose the left but to lead by example in publicly opposing the left by word and deed. We must recall that the left's primary weapon is their whiny voice and heartstring tugging sob stories often without basis in fact.

The problem with normie middle America is that we must de-program them after decades of managerial/nanny state and progressive cult brainwashing. This will take time, patience and careful administration of the red pill in dosages nice Mr and Mrs Normie can take. It may not be possible to fully restore American culture to its traditional individually self-sufficient and minarchist self where success and achievement was rewarded but should be possible to make it closer to this condition and more functional.

Is the dissident and alt right or conservatism doing this? For all the dissident/alt right and the libertarian trashing of conservatism when they're all not trashing each other. I might add that the failures of mainstream conservatism are all true but what successes can these other sects of the right point to that makes them any better? Or that they simply aren't making the same mistakes conservatism inc. made in reading out other factions from the middle right of the spectrum on or engaging in endless, pointless discussions only among themselves. The conservatives at least have the groypers and although it isn't much, it is a start.

All normies need is someone they can trust tell them it's OK to say "America first" and really mean it, we don't need immigration to provide cheap labor for corporations, we have the right to choose who we let immigrate into our country and on this do not need to explain ourselves to anyone and even to say we do not want any immigration at all.

There are many problems to be solved but the first must be those of the American right.

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

Donald Cavaioli

Some thoughts on the Z Man "The Value of Dumb Ideas" posted December 23, 2019

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

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's Call to "White Supremacist" to Repent Their Sins and Accept the Mercy of the Inquisition

From The Huffington Post: "Ocasio-Cortez Speaks Directly To White Supremacists In Surprise Appeal" by Ed Mazza, posted August 7, 2019

I usually do try to stay away from posting anything about Sandy, the Queen of Cringy Clickbait, that Ultimate Dreamgirl of Hipster Bugmen, and the girl who constantly prattles on so much and really says nothing because quite frankly, I find her and her race baiting and threadbare socialist drivel boring. But like passing a car accident and out of morbid curiosity, you just have to stop and take a look and I'll later regret the 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back reading this inane article, watching the attached video, but I just couldn't help but to look at this latest car wreck of cringe.

Here Sandy in the video looks like a preacher having an Oprah moment calling upon white supremacists to repent their racial sins and return to the fold, your mother awaits her prodigal son, even your teacher prays for your conversion to the one true progressive liberal religion. Just accept Marx as your personal savior, embrace your replacement as a majority in your own country and shut the fuck up, you silly white American people. Now everybody, big hug!

 However, Sandy only calls out white racists in spite of many other mass murders by non-whites. She starts with the premise that there is a sizeable contingent of these white supremacists that are committing all the mass shootings on the planet, who have been seduced by the racism devil and that they represent the only "hate group" on earth. Any other non-white who commits an act of mass murder must be justified then as the left's angels can do no wrong.

The forgiving sentiments expressed are questionable as not once does Sandy concede that maybe dissidents who disagree with multiculturalism or immigration policy, those whom she refers to as "white supremacists" may have a grievance even if she herself believes it to be unfounded. She and all other leftists and liberals assume those who disagree with progressive immigration policies and multiculturalism only do so out of unreasoning hatred for foreigners and a belief in the manifest superiority of their own race without providing any credible evidence for it. This shows that Sandy and the rest of the progressive liberal clown show haven't even bothered to listen to what the dissidents have to say about their thinking and beliefs.

How can one offer to extend forgiveness under these circumstances if one is unwilling to at least listen to what the alleged offender has to say in his own defense. Especially without dialog and debate after which the "white supremacist" himself acknowledges his mistake and asks for forgiveness?

It is possible to forgive and forget someone for something they mistakenly believed in. But considering other statements Sandy has made, I suspect that these so-called "white supremacists" can never be forgiven the original sin of racism. For it is enshrined in the scripture of the identity left that racism is quintessential to white people and only white people. Nor will racism and "white privilege", branded upon us like the mark of Cain, ever be expunged no matter if we vote for "people of color" candidates, pay the danegeld of reparations or no matter how profusely and many times we apologize and grovel for forgiveness. To the progressive left, our moral character is fixed and permanently etched into us at birth.

If the ever present virus of racism is incurable then white people are just permanently infected with evil and only await a gun to tell them to go kill all non-whites. Or so goes the progressive and liberal narrative. The final tell that this is just more empty and meaningless rhetoric in a banal attempt to make Sandy look like the "good guy" peacemaker is her assertion that President Trump is in fact a racist. Confirmed through incontrovertible spectral evidence and thus beyond any shadow of a doubt a racist. Yet no matter how many times civic nationalist Trump denounced racism and "hate", called for more legal immigration, the bad Orange Man is the chief devil who can never be redeemed. As the Orange Man of supreme evil is worshiped by and commands all "white supremacists", who have no will or mind of their own, to acts of wickedness through a series of secret codes and "dog whistles" then how can any of these offenders ever repent or be reformed? It's a catch 22 situation.

If Sandy and her prog comrades can never forgive Trump, a man who was always a moderate with socially liberal tendencies, who never made any racist remarks then what hope can dissidents who are labeled "white supremacists", who have openly blasphemed the Identity Marx god can be reformed of their wrongthink and forgiven except perhaps by their neighbors and loved ones. They, who as Sandy in a voice quavering with almost believable emotion informs us are forlornly awaiting their bad seed to see the light and come home. Here one must pause to wipe away a tear at such a heart string tugging moment.

But wait, there's another catch 22 here as well. Aren't their friends and neighbors, presumably white as well and themselves thus tainted by the original sin of racism? Who can the offender's family, teachers, loved ones, pets etc., confess their sins to and return to to be reformed? Can a forever damned race sinner forgive or reform another forever damned race sinner, especially one who blasphemed multiculturalism and open borders immigration. Is it not established canon that all of them through their viral racist infection have an innate, uncontrollable desire to be mean to "people of color" as Sandy, speaking ex-cathedra, in the previously linked article has established? The convoluted ontology is enough to make your head spin.

Therefore the lachrymose prodigal son imagery is simply words devoid of any rational meaning or true intent, spoken only for emotional effect.

Does Sandy ever think through this stuff before she speaks or does she just blurt out anything she thinks sounds good, blissfully unaware of how cringy or silly it really is? Maybe not, but what's more important here is how sincere she is and to consider if the sappy inanity may well cover something darker.

And here Sandy's claimed offer of forgiveness rings hollow, which is a fine way of saying it's bullshit. As previously noted, Sandy and the rest of her clown posse haven't ever bothered to listen to what the dissidents whom she smears as "white supremacists" have to say in their own defense. There is no other side of the story, no defense for the wicked as their guilt is manifest and absolute. Therefore all that remains is for the accused to confess their sins and gain absolution only after purification in the fires of the stake.

This is so because Sandy and the Justice Democrats, and the progressive left as a whole, have established themselves as evangelical missionaries of the Identity Marx cargo cult whose sacred duty it is to purge the world of all sin and evil and to exorcise those they deem evil. To accomplish this crusade, they have appointed themselves the Justice Inquisitors, the hunters and destroyers of witches, heretics and other bad people. Their belief system demands it. The world must be cleansed of all doubters, dissidents, unbelievers and deplorables, and so purified before the promised socialist heaven on Earth can be achieved.

Therefore, the Justice Inquisitors deem the stake and gibbet to be unavoidable as those unbelievers and dissidents whom the progressive left consider to be devils are of an evil which is intrinsic and immutable. So it is impossible for the devils to repent, be reformed or reeducated and so become good as lefty progs do not believe human beings have free will or moral agency. Hence, the devils cannot choose not to be devils anymore and therefore, can only be, and must be, destroyed. The teleology of the progressive left offers no other solution.

Personally, I thought Sandy did a much better job with the method acting, crying at the border fence while looking at the empty road but still an almost credible a job at bad acting and duplicity.


Donald Cavaioli