Furthest Right

What the “Third Way” Really Means

What we might realize, looking over history, is that almost all of it involves social posturing and jockeying for importance between individuals, and almost none of this considers anything larger than the individual and his quest for advancement.

Only aristocrats did otherwise by thinking of eternity, but that betrayed them once things started going badly, because in the long term all they could see was death and decay. This caused despair and passive surrender to hopelessness and negativity.

As it turned out, the aristocrats were right and things have become very dark indeed. Vapid and trivial, this society survives by avoiding a growing list of large real problems in order to focus on an endless list of small inconsequential symbolic problems in order to give us the illusion of progress.

However, we can turn it around any time we want by doing what one always does to turn things around: stop doing the stupid things, toss out the ruined, and nurture or replicate the functional to fill the void.

If you wonder why those in power in the media and government seem nervous, it is that we could resurrect Western Civilization tomorrow, and that would eject people such as them back to the third world where they would be totally unimportant since grifters are a dime-a-dozen.

That scares them. Any other problem they treat with the usual arrogance, viewing it as an optics question only and that they can push through using the usual methods employed by the system and being just fine, but civilizational resurrection? That means their irrelevance.

These people are like most criminals and grifters in that they have one gambit and if that fails, they break and run. Criminals are essentially bullies of a different sort, and every bully has just one approach, which is to try to make you back down. If you do not, he has no followup.

Our society got burnt down by people using a binary attack. They asked us, “Do you support equality?” and if the answer was not yes, construed it to mean support for “inequality,” when really there is a third way out there which comprises wanting other methods, distrusting the question, and many others.

The search for a “third way” involves this option — that the question is somehow not relevant — to the question of equality. Leftists say equality is not just necessary but the core of morality, and some other group may say that inequality is essential.

For the rest of us however, it is simply the wrong question, the fish without a bicycle of political science. Do we need equality? We need neither extreme of it, because the question is wrong. Do we need fish to have bicycles? This question too is nonsensical.

They attack with implicit circular reasoning. Assuming that X is not just good, but the only good answer to our problems, do you support X or not? If you do not, it sure sounds like you want us to fail because X is the only answer.

Therefore the third way consists of “I think there is another answer” which is a polite way of saying that the question of equality is irrelevant or unnecessary. In a strict interpretation, equality is not necessary, nor is inequality.

However, in a state of nature, life is unequal by nature, and this is what Leftists hope to “correct” so that they feel a greater sense of humanity flexing its power over nature, like Ahab killing his White Whale. Feelings of power however have nothing to do with outcomes.

In this way, we do support inequality but not in an active, affirmative way. It is like asking us if we support gravity, since it will be there anyway whether we support it or not. If someone asked us to support anti-gravity initiatives that would spend $22 trillion to suspend people twenty feet in the air, we might just chuckle, pat the questioner on the head, and go off in search of an orderly.

Today a small part of equality fell. Someone finally figured out that transsexualism is the usual egalitarian scam, spending money and wrecking institutions to make the useless feel important:

FINA members widely adopted a new “gender inclusion policy” on Sunday that only permits swimmers who transitioned before age 12 to compete in women’s events. The organization also proposed an “open competition category.”

No more men who suddenly put on female swimsuits and decided to win in an easier category, since women are generally smaller and less muscular, for world swimming. Instead, only those who transitioned before puberty and therefore never received that hormone blast can play.

Even better, FINA gave us the three gender categories for the future: male, female, and Other. Anyone who wants to swim in the open competition can and probably will, out back in the parking lot where no one is paying attention because the category implies mental health problems.

The Left loves tearing down parts of reality. Their primary goal, liberalization, benefits the individual in the short term by relaxing standards and rules. Instead of those cultural value systems, we get procedures to follow so that everyone feels safe.

That in turn benefits Leftists, who without their ideological crusade would have no importance and most likely, nothing to talk about. They have no center that grounds them and links them to life. They are meaningless people living meaningless lives, desperate for a symbol to give them relevance and purpose.

The problem with the third way is that by definition it is not Leftist, so cannot rely on anything egalitarian. That pushes it closer to the Right, which relies on time-proven things, not human intentions and feelings, for the basis of what it sees as good.

In fact, the root of the Right could be seen as simple acceptance of the fact that some things are good, and lead to continued excellence, and some things are bad, and subtract from it. In the middle are things which are merely stagnant or inoccuous.

The Left, on the other hand, consists of the idea that all of us are nice humans and therefore none of us are bad, which means that there is no bad except those who do not accept our ideology and religion of equality.

As detailed here, the Right is ends-over-means. We see results in reality as the only measure of what is good, and we realize that people are what they are, meaning that some are good, some are bad, and most are in the middle somewhere. Results are all that matters, and character is a type of result.

On the other hand, the left likes means-over-ends because they are fundamentally individualistic, which leads to a pacifism which amounts to an agreement between people not to attack each other for their weaknesses. Mutual tolerance and collective reward mean guaranteed mediocrity but safety.

None of us woke up and wanted to be conservatives. It has bad branding, and bad optics. We wanted to be the people pushing forward to greater heights for humanity, but it turns out that this group got subverted long ago by the egalitarians and now simply pushes equality.

The third way consists of looking at the current mess and saying, “What if I simply decided not to engage with the ideas these people think are important?” Cast aside equality without pursuing inequality, and suddenly you come face-to-face with reality, which is what They are hiding.

Tags: , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn