In the Right-winger we see primordial man, more animal than social animal. He trusts himself more than others, who he sees as mostly only out for themselves, rich or poor. He navigates by gut instinct and what he has personally known to work in the past, distrusting “new” ideas as usually scams.
Where others like to enmesh themselves in intrigue, plotting ahead, and subterfuge, the primordial man tends to be straightforward because he realizes that no plan survives contact with reality, so it is better to simplify and go in blind that to try to outwit nature.
Consequently, he takes a straightforward approach. Porn does bad things? Ban it. Homosexuality weird? Drive it out. Black people rioting? Shoot them. His approach succeeds because of its simplicity, but fails because it does not dig out the underlying causes of the things he notes as harmful.
He finds himself in trouble when it comes to managing civilization because every thing he does to make society better also makes it grow, which translates into more people, and they have to be convinced to at least not act, if not to act in support of his ideas.
Most of these do not have his base-level competence or his experience and so they are prone to illusion and fear the simple and straightforward solutions that he has to complex problems. Destroying the bad and promoting the good only makes sense if one understands the complexity of simplicity.
The straightforward solutions favored by primordial man recognize that when you discover the true nature of something as bad or good, you design a path of action which addresses all possible variations of outcome. That means eliminating the bad and orienting toward the good exclusively.
He has room for grey areas. That which is not on-task to the good but also does not impede that task is not bad, which is why humans tend to focus first on smashing down the bad. He tolerates eccentricity because goal is more important than method, including most behavior.
When Donald Trump was elected, many on the Right began the usual wail of “I did not get what I wanted for Christmas, even though this is a pretty swell gift.” They wanted the return of Charlemagne with a side serving of Adolf Hitler and Francis Galton, since they realized the diversity trap.
What is the diversity trap? Healthy normal people tend to be tolerant, so when foreigners arrive, they make them welcome. At some point the foreigners realize that unless their group gains power, it exists at the whim of the majority, so it uses its numbers to take over from the majority.
Conservatives — aided by fake WASP William F. Buckley — slept through the past century of increasing immigration just like they slept through the century before it. With the Obama election, they woke up in a third world country where heritage Americans seem like oddities. It was a rude awakening.
One can blame them for their slumber, but then again, we must remember that primordial man is focused on his local community and what he understands. Abstractions like “diversity” and “globalism” baffle him, but he will complain loudly about English being the second language in his area or all our stuff being made in China.
He knows his gut instinct. If given a choice, he would have elected someone on the far-Right, and that person would have immediately forced government to build the wall, obliterated all immigration, and basically banned Leftists. This would have walked right into the trap set by the Left.
Leftists specialize in one power move, namely the first mover advantage plus passive aggressive provocation. They dream up a “new” idea or issue, implement it, and then when people express outrage, act as if they were being assaulted by a powerful force that just hates them for being human!
Conservatives blunder into this because they think in the straightforward, tangible, consistent, and present-tense (Leftists, being ideologues, think in an abstract perfect tense). The Leftist does something stupid, the conservative says that it is stupid, and then the Crowd sides with the Leftist as he weeps and wails about how he was disrespected or offended. The Left wins.
If we got the Trump that we wanted in our hearts, he would have provoked a civil war and no end of political maneuvering. Since he acted first, he would have been seen as the aggressor, and then society would have gone even farther Left. We would have lost bigly had Trump done that.
Instead, Trump specializes in producing what is called a “meeting engagement,” or a situation in which the conflict is evident and the lack of a solution becomes painful. At that point, he offers a reasonable compromise, the Left bats it down, and then Trump wins using the strategy of the Left by adopting his plan only after having attempted to find a moderate answer.
He told us that he would do this in his book where he details the New York skating rink that he renovated. Government fought him; he made offers; he pointed out problems. Then, he waited and provoked by raising the value of nearby properties. Finally, government gave in, and Trump got all he wanted.
He is a real-estate developer who realizes that America is currently an under-valued property, and can be made more highly valued by replacing the unproductive with the productive. If he brings back American self-esteem and gets us back to the top of world production, America will be worth ten times as much.
Obama operated by a different principle, namely trying to pacify everyone with gifts while trading away American preeminence for a position like that of Canada, being liked for being weak.
Moving ahead, Trump did a number of significant things:
Now he is preparing for his grandest act, and it should terrify the Left because it will completely transform America. Coronavirus, by the way, will aid him in this, although he did nothing to encourage the disaster there.
Trump intends to re-invent America as the manufacturing capital of the world.
He has savaged China and pointed out that they are an enemy and not an ally, with coronavirus illustrating how inept and deceptive the Chinese are. He has pushed back against their computer gear with its spyware. The world now knows that globalism has become obsolete.
In that void, he presents to us the greatest opportunity of the last century, namely the gold rush that restoring American business is about to become. We are going to take back everything we make overseas and make it here, including all goods and services.
With that kind of push, he will effect a greater economic recovery than that during WW2, and without firing a shot. There will be good jobs for everyone who is not utterly incompetent. The value of America will rise, and the value of being an American will rise.
At the same time, he is savaging the idea that the future of America consists of cheap third world labor, whether imported or domestic. He is fortunate because the rise of automation has hit its golden period right now, so we no longer need more warm bodies; we need good, intelligent, and diligent workers, but none of those attributes are in the third world DNA.
Simultaneously, he has shown us that the future of America is populism, roughly described as nationalism, social conservatism, and libertarianism wrapped into one. Following the Reagan blueprint, he wants to defeat socialism lite at home and organized socialism abroad in China and Russia.
In other words, we are about to be engaged in a vast war with two fronts: overseas, we are going to bankrupt the Chinese by removing our dependency from them and driving them out of their various scam businesses in Africa, and domestically, we are going to replace the three-quarters of our budget that goes to entitlements with a drive to restore and expand American industry.
Now he has created a meeting engagement, and this means that we are going to be in pain until we make this transition, but the transition is also inevitable. We cannot go back; we must go forward. But something is holding us back.
As our cities burn, it becomes clear that what holds us back is diversity. In government, diversity means that the vote is always divided and there is no unity; in industry, it means high affirmative action and lawsuit costs; in normal life, it means your cities burn every few years when some diversity outrage occurs (but never when a white person is injured).
We cannot defeat China and rebuild our industry with the parasites we have attached to ourselves. One of those is the socialist-style Keynesian entitlements system which drains away much of our income, but another is the massive cost and energy expenditure of our constantly-failing diversity programs.
People whine and wail about the War on (Some) Drugs, but the fact is that we spent many times that amount on trying to make diversity work and have even worse results. Constant low-grade ethnic warfare occurs constantly through crime, lawsuits, politics, and white guilt based shakedowns like the temper tantrum and panic over George Floyd, who died of a heart attack brought on by the stress of an arrest and drug use. Many of us now think that he swallowed his stash and fought with the officers, causing his underlying health conditions to kill him as the drug and stress overloaded his system.
While this is sad, and many of us feel bad for George Floyd, the normal functional Americans see this as cause and effect: carry drugs or do drugs, have bad health, and assault or mouth off to the police in a tense situation, and you will probably die. We spend our lives trying to avoid such situations before they happen.
The mood in a country which is rising tends to reflect Darwinism. We like to see the good rewarded and the bad cast aside, and Floyd clearly was not behaving like the good. In sad times, we pity ourselves and weep over every person who dies from their own mistakes, simply because we fear the same for ourselves.
In good times, however, we focus on doing good and shrug off the ones who fail. Yes, it is sad, but look at what is right around the corner: good things. We realize that if we focus on the good, it comes to us, where if we obsess over the bad, we get more of it.
Diversity however offers nothing but bad because it consists of minority groups explaining how they have been injured by the majority, even though this is a tactic for minority groups to overthrow the majority. They either do this or accept being ruled by the majority, a tenuous position.
We can admit then that diversity is simply a failed program that inevitably splits up a nation into special interests and forces them to fight with each other, effectively destroying any potential that this nation had. Now that we have a task before us, we no longer have the time, money, or energy for diversity.
For that reason we can say that diversity has become obsolete. When we were on top in the postwar years, we could always add more costs — entitlements, free stuff, diversity, immigration — to our prosperity, and we became emotional because our lives were without real meaning because there was no struggle for a worthwhile goal.
At this point, we have a worthwhile goal again, which is that we must defeat the bad and raise the good in its place. We cannot do this with anchors around our ankles like diversity or the three-quarters of our budget going to socialist entitlements programs, so those things have become obsolete.