Unite the right to win a better world order

People are so dramatic that sometimes it seems like they want any excuse to give up.

One of their favorite forms of giving up is extremism for extremism’s sake. Why spend your time and effort on an achievable task, when you can invent the morality of a “perfect” solution that shows no promise for reality? It makes you seem above it all.

Another great way to give up is to invent your own spin on a belief. Don’t stick with a plausible interpretation of history; claim you have something new. Better yet, patch it together from incompatible bits of existing philosophy, so it requires impossible total control.

Giving up is what many are doing on election 2012. They have convinced themselves that both parties “are the same,” and that the system is rigged. Or that no candidate represents their values. Or even that it’s all hopeless and there’s no point participating.

All of this denies the fundamental truth of politics, which is that there are essentially two directions. They aren’t positions or parties, but paths of thought.

The first is leftism. It’s new, starting in the 18th century, but seems to appear in every society when it gets too bottom heavy. The idea of leftism is that everyone should be able to do whatever they want to, with minimal hierarchy, because what people feel and perceive is most important.

The second is rightism. It’s ancient, being invented when every society is created. Its idea is that we should pay attention to how reality works and use proven, workable and eternal ideas to guide ourselves. Perception and feelings are secondary to the outside world in this view.

It’s not popular to say this, but America and Europe are basically in the same fix. A massive leftism lobby is slowly taking over and replacing the indigenous people with leftist voters, who are both immigrants and home-grown people who are mentally broken because of the effects of liberal social programs. This mob grows like a snowball, and its only desire is to destroy all culture and heritage, all values and preference, and replace them with good “non-conformist” conformists who have one goal alone, reaching the leftist Utopia through equality. Leftism takes prosperous societies and leaves behind starving third-world ghettos because it removes sanity from human minds.

We can either go toward more leftism, or toward more rightism. Those are your two options. There are no others; even the most far-out and creative belief system is going to be going more toward one direction than the other.

You might look at Mitt Romney and think, “This guy is really too restrained and moderate for what needs to be done. What we need to do is turn around, fast, and throw out the ingrates and put ourselves back on track.”

While that’s true, you should pay attention to our opponents — the leftists — and how they beat us and took over. They found a popular idea. They steadily advanced it, through baby steps and daily acts of disobedience, until they’d browbeaten or guilt-trapped others into joining them.

Soon they became a popular trend, like joining the local bowling league. You knew other people through being leftist, and met girls that way, and had a social group. They were a society within a society. But they did it all through baby steps.

The only way to un-do the damage they’ve done is to take baby steps as well. Peel a layer of the onion, wait, and observe that not only has the country not imploded, but it’s doing better. Then peel another layer, and do the same thing.

While people hunger for sudden explosive change, it’s the guys like Mitt Romney who are pushing us to victory. They are supremely able administrators and they push relentlessly and constantly for baby steps in the right direction.

In other words, no matter where you are on the right, from a moderate who leans left on gay marriage to an extreme radical counter-revolutionary, you are serving your interests best by joining mainstream politics and approving its message mass support for a rightist direction.

This path has the advantage of not risking an unstable rebellion, not damaging the lives and careers of our people, and also giving us time to make slow and cautious moves instead of rushing off into wars like last century.

Times change, and with it we must, or we fail to adapt and become obsolete. This is the age of liberalism’s failure, as all of its social programs turn into disasters, which means we must be the antithesis of those ideals but also use its methods.

As we push forward with patience and deliberation, our opponents quake in fear because this is the one attack they have no defense against. A slow invasion and replacement. It’s what they did to us, so turnabout must be fair play.

29 Comments

  1. Jane says:

    Americans don’t understand blood.
    http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/if-people-are-not-valued-blood-they-are-valued-money
    Where does the socialism of kin loyalty fit in your world view?

    1. Anon says:

      That’s because even mostly-white Americans usually have some sort of Western European admixture…the almost exclusive English American, or German American, or Scandinavian American families are a dying breed, and most of them are mixtures of the above, and/or Celt, Scots, Dutch. We’re excluding the Southern European Americans here because they form a separate grouping.

      So, the way I see it, Americans don’t tend to unite around the genetic/ethnic concept, in general. This is natural given the history of the country, and what I’ve said above regarding their “diverse” (by ancient standards) Western European makeup. If they unite around anything meaningful, it’s politics and belief systems.

      The last thing they need at present is for each ethnic group which tends towards the right to break away and cut ideological ties with each other. Like Mr Stevens said, baby steps…

      1. NotTheDude says:

        That is interesting to note for me as an Englishman [though not 'pure', but Western European]. I have come to value Regionality, which I feel must fall in with ethnicity more and more as time goes on as well as Nationalism. How highly do Americans value regional differences? Or have they not had enough time to become solid and meaningful?

        1. Lisa Colorado says:

          Regional identities are like this: you can identify as a Southerner, but generally nobody would call themselves a “northerner” unless it was to draw up a distinction in a conversation. Southerners lost the civil war, so there’s a kind of “screw you, I’m still proud of my side” ingredient, especially for rednecks and hillbillies. and they also have some traditions that are hard for outsiders to get with.

          I have a Mormon identifying factor, though I’m not one. I think jokes about gelatin desserts are hilarious and yes, I do know how to do handcrafts and bake bread. For a Mormon young man to call a young woman a “special spirit” means she’s ugly. I will have a special connection with an LDS person even though they’re just like everyone else in ways that count.

          I kind of hate fundamentalist Christians. I kind of like liberals. But I would rather sneak around and hide my little secrets in a conservative society than have all my good qualities matter not as they would if I lived in a liberal society. I’m just not flowery and feckless enough.

          Okay back to being on-topic. Our regional differences used to matter more than they do now, because of economic and historic concentrations.

          It’s cool that you call yourself an Englishman, NotTheDude because I trust that better than British. I love Englishness because of CS Lewis and Roald Dahl and Black Beauty and all the other things I read as a child. I’m not of English extraction. Maybe a little Welsh and a lot of Scottish.

          We’ll say things like “got your Irish up” to mean you got furious and mean. Or “Welshed out” to mean changed your mind about a commitment.

          1. NotTheDude says:

            I view being ‘British’ as either a way of identifying all the peoples of Great Britain [including the Cornish! Haha] or a term used to buldoze through obvious historical differences all the time. Both should be used as and when applicable, but I dont speak a Brythonic language. I speak English and abide by and identify with being English. But it is true that unity can be strength.

          2. MAP says:

            For many Southerners, it isn’t anger for our losing that great struggle that draws us together; it is the fact that our ancestors were right: They were correct in their belief that the consolidation of the central government would be a scourge upon the people. It would result in tyranny. Giving the central state the power to undertake secular crusades is to give it the power to undertake anything unchecked, via a false, self-righteous umbrella. Nor is it only rednecks and hillbillies that believe this. The South has many teachers and professors that have spent a lifetime in upholding the states’ rights, limited central government, Jeffersonian position. In the South, our position remains:

            The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so … – Alex de Tocqueville, Democracy In America

    2. Lisa Colorado says:

      I have decided to designate myself “American” because it doesn’t do me any good at all to try and hearken back to blood ties. While I am proud of them, at this time it would do this country a whole lot of good if we would say “I’m American,” not hyphenated, because the US has been at its best when we all think of ourselves as American.

      In school we used to learn American values, but now it’s “diversity,” which means nothing.

      We divide up by self-identifying categories. For example I’m a conservative; I fit in best with moderate conservatives but secondarily with moderate liberals. I know how all my friends vote and I feel much more safe and happy with those whose vote I trust. We all seem to care a lot about the Protestant work ethic. Anyone who has that, I like– no matter what race or anything else.

      1. Robo says:

        American means the white people that created the United States. It means the white people the Constitution of the United States was addressed to, when the words “to ourselves and our Posterity”, were carefully chosen by the Founding Fathers.

        Whites are American nationals.

        Non-whites are American paper citizens.

        Nations are not made of paper.

        1. NotTheDude says:

          True, yet I seem to recall hearing that African and Native Indian folk also had major parts to play. Not to mention those forever industrious folk, the Asian Americans. But yes they all need their own places to thrive.

        2. Lisa Colorado says:

          I do not agree. Between a white person born here who denigrates this country, such as a Noam Chomsky, and a person with more skin pigment who loves this country, such as a Thomas Sowell, there’s no doubt in my mind.

    3. 1349 says:

      And they have no history, they’re young. If they don’t want to be united around money, they probably need a uniting religion. Which could be some christian denomination like mormonism (Romney…) or a doctrine based on indo-european worldview and ritualism (which is yet to be constructed of what is known from, say, Indian/Tibetan, ancient Roman, Nordic and east European traditions). But then again, newer christianity encourages money making.

      1. Lisa Colorado says:

        Most Americans are materialistic in the philosophical sense, even in the religious sense of it. If they are going to believe in Jesus Christ, they want to be able to feel the spirit of Jesus Christ in their bodies and see blessings happen in their lives. If they are going to be, say, nature and outdoor lovers, they are going to want to show it in their clothes and attitudes.

        It’s typically American to believe if you are living right, ie keeping your job, saving your money, spending time with your kids, you will prosper. That’s materialistic thinking.

        But then if you get people talking about money, they will usually say something to acknowledge it’s a sin to believe in money as a god. However, your god is that which you devote your time and money to. Whatever you will sacrifice to, that’s your god. And then again, if you take people’s money away from them, the qualities that got them the money will get them more money into their lives.

        We can’t really help who we are. We just have to accept it. The country was founded for two reasons: exploit resources for money to support a large effort (first the king, then business owned on our shores.) second reason: freedom from the dictates of the powerful over the dissenter. That’s where we get freedom to speak, worship, bear arms etc.

        There’s good and bad about all that. I doubt we will ever be united under one thing. Even when we say we are united, everybody’s got a different idea of what that means.

        Sorry–I’m off on a tangent nobody will even read or care about. Help me, I’m typing and I can’t shut up!

        1. 1349 says:

          If they are going to believe in Jesus Christ, they want to be able to feel the spirit of Jesus Christ in their bodies and see blessings happen in their lives. If they are going to be, say, nature and outdoor lovers, they are going to want to show it in their clothes and attitudes.

          I’d call such behaviour pagan / rustic.

          However, your god is that which you devote your time and money to. Whatever you will sacrifice to, that’s your god.

          Very good point which, i think, needs to be often publicly repeated.

          I doubt we will ever be united under one thing.

          Well, if there’s no need, you will not.

  2. Lisa Colorado says:

    What you describe about the conspiracy theorists and Ron Paul wishers is akin to Amerika–people not being able to accept reality. They want a streamlined, simplified explanation or on the other extreme, a dark and complicated hidden answer, because reality is to…never mind I’ve got a cat video to watch.

    I don’t want to treat the Left as they treat us. In personal life I’ve observed their lack of apology when they’ve done something wrong–only when feelings have been hurt. Conservatives I know who have done wrong have suffered over it because they failed themselves. The people I know on the Left take pleasure in the discomfort of their enemies. Those I know on the right really feel bad for people who screw up their lives, but they see it as a chance to stop knocking one’s head against a wall, not a time to give a hand-out.

    If I could be in charge of the needy and the underperforming, I’d have them ask specifically for what they want or need to get along and I wouldn’t think of what I think is great and try to get them to adopt it. I would give the needy their personal sovereignty without supporting what makes them weak.

    1. ferret says:

      I’d have them ask specifically for what they want or need to get along and I wouldn’t think of what I think is great and try to get them to adopt it.

      It’s too late for them to adopt; it should be nurtured at early stage. And on your question “what they want or need” they would say: “a comfortable wall to knock head against”.

      This society became a production line of “the needy and the underperforming”, starting from the kindergarten, or even earlier, by means of the ruling ideology, propaganda, and culture.

      It’s hard to offer the real help, “without supporting what makes them weak” because they are not ready to receive this help. A lot of work need to be done around first. Though maybe it’s too pessimistic.

    2. 1349 says:

      Maybe every person must be given a [i]task[/i] which would, from their level of intellect, look holy and worth of devoting a whole life to.

  3. NotTheDude says:

    Gives me a new hope in creeping back against they mad devils!

  4. 1349 says:

    baby steps in the right direction

    These can be understood quite literally:

    Revolutionaries should have as many children
    as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that so-
    cial attitudes are to a significant extent inherited.

    (Industrial Society and Its Future, paragraph 204)

    =)
    In the end, a society within a society starts with a family. (Wonder how many of those posting and commenting here have kids.)

    1. Lisa Colorado says:

      I do.

    2. NotTheDude says:

      That is true, but in an already overpopulated world a balance between the ‘good’ breeders breeding and the ‘bad’ breeders not will bring balance. Always balance.

      1. 1349 says:

        Romney has FIVE children…

  5. Missy says:

    Moi aussi.

  6. Slade Harduwich says:

    Unite the right?

    Maybe a good start would have been Romney treating Ron Paul with more respect at the Republican Convention! Perhaps Ron Paul could have been given a prime time speaking slot like Pat Buchanan received in ’92.

    Why should we unite around Romney, when he won’t unite with some of us (Ron Paul supporters)

    1. Lisa Colorado says:

      I have an answer to that, and you know what my answer will be, and I don’t even need to say it.

      1. Slade Harduwich says:

        Actually Lisa Colorado I am new to this website so I am really not sure what your response will be!

        1. Anon says:

          Well, she covered it pretty well earlier up in this comments thread (@ 09/21/2012 at 8:06 am). In short, it’s counter productive for the right, and especially America’s right, to pick apart the movement over essentially superficial issues in the larger political landscape. The left will easily win if the only alternative is a bunch of bickering, ideologically fragmented old coots.

          But maybe Lisa has a different answer, in which case she had better come out and say it! :-)

  7. Time Curator 23 says:

    I’m sorry, but Mitt Romney and the Republican Party and the Neoconservatives ARE NOT, and I repeat, ARE NOT rightists or conservatives.

    You are NOT, and I repeat, ARE NOT going to advance the values and goals of rightists and conservatives via supporting Mitt Romney.

  8. Time Curator 23 says:

    Obama is a Whopper with a Pepsi and Romney is a Big Mac with a Coke.

    The latter may have a bit fewer calories and grams of fat, thus making it a bit of a better choice… but it does not make it the intelligent choice!

    The intelligent choice is to STOP eating fast food, and to make your own healthy meals. Intelligent conservatives need to STOP supporting the Republican Party and make their own that truly represents their mission.

    Amerika.org utilizes the strategy of “vanguarding”. That is a great strategy, but it will only work OUTSIDE of the Republican Party and Democratic Party.

    WAKE UP fellow conservatives. TAKE POWER via those who are disillusioned with these two corrupt and decadent parties. Don’t be a New Age Sensitive Nice Guy and politely work your way into the status quo. IT WILL NOT WORK.

  9. Time Curator 23 says:

    As a conservative, I prefer a clean, orderly, and functioning society. A part of that is being firm and harsh (but not cruel) to criminals.

    Mitt Romney IS a criminal. He is a felon. He is being indicted and may be fined and/or arrested.

    Strengthening the right means dumping Romney. He is a globalist stooge and will further drive our country into third world status.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.429 seconds