What terrifies the right wing


The right-wing exhibits all the signs of a defeated group.

They launch counterattacks, but do not expect them to succeed. Their highest goal — both aboveground and underground — seems to be to lessen the decline, or to hold out waiting for some magic future day when judgment comes.

The aboveground Right formed of the accepted right-wing parties talks glowingly of “bipartisanship” and “pragmatism” but these compromises never work in their favor. The underground right phrase their ideas in such antisocial terms that they guarantee they will never be supported, creating a clubhouse where they can say naughty words but will never affect any change.

These are at best actions to hold back the defeat from further expansion, but they’re strictly rearguard. There is no seizing of the initiative. That is because the right has no hope it can succeed.

On the surface, their pessimism is understandable. Since 1789, the West has steadily turned leftward. After the first world war, this habit really picked up, and gained steam with the Great Depression when many starved and socialism seemed like a tempting idea. Then WWII happened, and after that, the disaster of revelations about the Soviets who were out-of-the-closet totalitarians that the left had been cheering for for the previous three decades.

This is why the one thing that disturbs the Right, terrifies them and drives them into rage is a simple thing:


They don’t dare hope for real change. That puts everything on the line. With hope, they have something to lose. With hope, there’s a chance they might fail. After years of feeling beaten, marginalized and thoroughly out-maneuvered, hope is too much to ask. Seeing it drives them into a tempest of doubt, resentment and neurotic self-criticism.

But perhaps they should reconsider.

As the saying goes, “it’s always darkest just before dawn,” and the right should take this to heart. Liberalism is like most terrible ideas a process that works so long as it is not tested. Whenever it comes up against reality, it implodes.

Most people support liberalism for social reasons. They want their friends to think they’re nice. They want to expand the franchise to as many people as possible, and attract people to their personal projects and ideas. Chanting popular ideas that make it seem like our society is not decaying inward, but actually succeeding, gives everybody warm feelings. And then out come the pocketbooks.

At the same time, people are tiring of perpetual war. Liberalism knows one mode: revolution. It phrases all of its reforms as wars for progress. After lifetimes at war, people stop believing. They begin to feel that sinking feeling, like the best years of their lives perhaps were misspent.

Right now, the West is experiencing a let-down. We were told in 1968 that when the hippies took over, human goodness would reign. What we got instead was endless corruption, a broken system and multiplication of the social problems we had in the past. The more we try to buy our way out of depressions with socialism, the more our money becomes worthless and our society breaks down.

People are ready for change. The Right isn’t ready for them.

There are two forms of hope. One is waiting for a god or outside force to intervene and save you. This doesn’t work so well, in my experience. The other is to take hope in the work of your hands, in your knowledge of reality, and the ability to apply logic and solve problems. That is the kind of hope that the Right needs.

And yet, they fear it. They fear taking those steps. As if the whole thing might unravel…

Let me distill it for them: you have nothing to lose. If the pattern continues, the progressives/leftists/liberals will run everything into the ground and leave you with a country that resembles a hybrid between Brazil and the former Soviet Union. They will do this to all of the West because liberalism is a pathological ideology and they will go swiftly into denial until the end.

With nothing to lose, it’s time for the Right to make its move. 200 years ago we were the establishment; now, we’re the counter-establishment. We represent a new (relative to what has been done) way of doing things. Our ideas have the grandeur of a historic past that was better in every way outside of the leftist ideology.

People like me enrage the Right. I bring to them hope based in the idea that we can solve our problem of social decay like any other problem: by studying it, figuring out a goal, and breaking down the problem into steps toward that goal.

To adopt that idea would mean that they would have to abandon their comfy clubhouses, and their bipartisan agreements that make everyone rich, and their nasty habit of screaming invectives at the TV screen and feeling superior about themselves but doing nothing. It would mean putting their beliefs on the line. Acting, not chattering.

They are afraid to give up what they have for an uncertain future. That’s understandable. But it’s also why we need bravery. In all areas of life, we must take a leap of faith from what we know to what is new, and conquer it.

When they hear me say that, their rage intensifies. In their minds, I am attacking what they have and trying to destroy it. But what they have is on a path to inevitable failure if they do not change course.

Instead of placing our future hope in events that will not happen, let us work to fix it. This requires relatively few steps, the first of which is to raise a bunch of noise and make it clear what we represent. It means getting out of armchair. But if we follow the path of hope, we can create a new future.


  1. NotTheDude says:

    We are on the edge of change. I do not know how much, but more are looking to more conservative parties like UKIP (they aren’t great but its a start) here in the UK. Most are afraid to leave the niceties and lack of blame they gain by Leftism, yet yearn for the good life that sites like this write about. For most, it is like moving to a new country. They know life will be better there but they are afraid of leaving the security of what they have always known.

  2. The Right is confused because so many ‘right-wing’ ideas, policies, and values have been absorbed by the so-called ‘left’.

    The new ‘left’ is for privilege, free trade, libertarian views on immigration and drugs, concentration of wealth, collusion between big government and big business, for neo-aristocratism(which is why it loves fancy pants homos over the working class and blacks), etc.

  3. Iron Gospel says:

    The consensus here in the bluegrass is the hopelessness stems from seeing what we thought was “our” party pander to amnesty and looser immigration laws to appease a voting bloc they apparently can’t win without.
    Couple this with the old “Coal keeps the lights on!” rhetoric that sees our mountainous regions out east reduced to a state of desolation and toxicity that slowly bleeds its way into the local drinking water…..well, one can see why so many students of reality abandon the conventional political system and end up on the fringes.

  4. Hauer says:

    It’s not hard to see why conservatives are resistant to any change, whether it be good or bad. They are inherently pessimistic. Conservative ideas stem from a belief that human nature is generally undesirable and unchangeable. Society a fragile balancing act that prevents chaos. ‘Real hope’ simply too much for most conservatives to stomach.

  5. crow says:

    Lao Tzu had something to say about hope, and he didn’t praise it.
    As empty as fear, he claimed. Which is not an easy thing to understand.
    We like the idea of hope, here in the West. In our pessimism, we are optimistic that somehow, in some way, things will improve. But that whatever it is, in whatever way, it will happen without our having to become involved.

    What Lao Tzu was hinting at was that by accepting the moment, and living it fully, one does one’s best with what one has, and through that, life improves. Nobody changes the world, nor any group. Yet the world changes, by itself, when each one does his best.

    Humility is a characteristic of conservatism. To know oneself for the minor part one plays. The whole is made up of its minor parts.

    Conservatism grows, organically, from a single example, which, in contrast to the brash and ego-bound left, has a beauty and strength almost unknown. Calm and solid. Straight and tall. Fair and honest. The left has no answer to that.

    1. You might notice this acknowledgement:

      There are two forms of hope. One is waiting for a god or outside force to intervene and save you. This doesn’t work so well, in my experience. The other is to take hope in the work of your hands, in your knowledge of reality, and the ability to apply logic and solve problems. That is the kind of hope that the Right needs.

      1. crow says:

        This is indeed a perspective that needs to be made clear.
        Hope is useless without involvement of the hopeful one.
        It is usually something that is equated to being passive.
        But it bears more fruit with a little oiling of the gears.

        Reality helps those who help themselves.

  6. evilwhitemalempire says:

    Actually there is hope.

    Just not here.


    There’s more conservative values in a single member of the Duma than in the entire House and Senate put together.

    And they’re a big nuclear power not some shmuck third world country.

    And Putin is actively pushing to de westernize Ukraine. (Yes those are Russian special forces in ski masks over there in East Ukraine and GOOD!)

    1. crow says:

      That’s a very interesting link. Putin is certainly one to watch.
      The West has nothing even close to that kind of leadership.

  7. lisacolorado says:

    Hillary Clinton gives us the perfect opportunity to raise up our level of hope and pragmatism. I do not want that woman for president and I know many people who do, because she is not a white male and they hate white males in my opinion. She is arraying her forces and strategizing as Clintons know how to do. The Right knows her and it has the intellectual power to figure this out if there is the will.

    1. crow says:

      Uh??? I will refrain from responding to what looks like it was cut and pasted from Mad Magazine. What I will ask is: what did you mean by what you wrote? Your comment didn’t make a scrap of sense, that I could see. Then again, I can be a bit of a dimwit, sometimes…

      1. Try this paraphrase, which lisacolorado will have to confirm as accurate or not:

        [The challenge raised by the candidacy of] Hillary Clinton gives us the perfect opportunity to raise our level of hope and pragmatism.

        I do not want that woman for president; [however,] I know many people who do [want her as president] because she is not a white male and they hate white males, in my opinion.

        [Clinton] is arraying her forces and strategizing as Clintons know how to do. The Right knows her [as a candidate, weaknesses,etc] and it has the intellectual power to figure [out how to defeat her] if there is the will [to do so].

        1. crow says:

          Ah! Half of it was (possibly) missing.
          Now it looks like something.
          Nice editing job.

  8. Aeroguy says:

    The problem isn’t hope it’s distinguishing between winning a battle and winning a war. A good commander must know when to retreat and regroup from a battle. Retreating and knowing when a battle is lost is not the same as losing hope. The battle is politics, we lost. Think about it, what are you going to do, make a constitutional amendment that says people need to actually follow the constitution as written? You do understand the constitution is a dead letter. There is no political reset, just pushing the stone back up the hill. Or think about the Somme, it’s just sending boys over the trenches again. Don’t accuse me of losing hope because I’m telling you that sending boys over the trenches is a stupid and hopeless tactic. I’m saying to look at the broader war and change tactics. We are not just at war with the left, the left is society itself, society is infected like a zombie, whatever part of it that was good, is now dead. You can’t cure it any more than you can cure the dead. So you do the only decent thing you can do which is to put a bullet in it’s head. In the case of society it will die by means of economic collapse, the global financial system will fail. Collapse is a horrible awful thing, like death, but it’s necessary if you want new life, in this case a new civilization. Preparing the way for a new civilization that exists in harmony with reality, that is the war, that is where real hope is found. Acknowledging that the constitution is a failure is just accepting reality, it is not giving up hope.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.598 seconds