Furthest Right

When the Enemy of Your Enemy is Not a Friend

Those on the Right frequently make the mistake of taking Leftism at face value. Instead of viewing it as the excess wealth of a society produced by efficiency causing an outbreak of human narcissism, they accept it as an altruistic attempt to fix errors of nature and see the world in those terms.

In reality, the weakness of Leftism — egalitarianism — is that it is not necessary. It is optional, based on the conjecture that a more Utopian world can exist. People have survived without it for most of human history. If it goes away, we will survive, and that disturbs liberals more than anything else.

Conservatives suffer under the illusion that Leftism is the only system and change must occur within that system instead of realizing that we must simply walk away from it by rejecting the idea that equality=good. Instead, conservatives hope for a more conservative version of the Leftist system, which means we will always be headed toward more Leftism.

Consider the opinion, common among conservative circles, that because the liberalized West is “evil” then whatever its opposite must be “good,” therefore the victory of our enemies is a positive thing and appeasement is a sane solution:

The prospective Russian victory over the combined forces of NATO operating through, and behind, the cover of predominantly Ukrainian blood will, hopefully, at least start a process whereby the West will eventually be cured of its unipolar, hegemonic hubris. Whilst it is crucial for the progress of the world generally that the civilisationally Anglo-Saxon Collective West replace its bid for neo-liberal hegemony with geo-political humility, it is particularly relevant for Britain to seek reconciliation with Russia.

In this view, America ruling the world is terrible in itself, not merely because America is promoting DEADS (democracy, equality, atomization, and socialism/subsidies). They want to, like all Leftists, remove the source of power so that anarchy with subsidies can rule.

When they talk about “neo-liberal hegemony,” they are targeting the hegemony, not the neo-liberalism, when the latter is what they really want removed. The concept of targeting power itself instead of abuses of power fits within many Leftist systems because ultimate they desire group individualism or anarchy with mutual subsidies.

A saner view looks at Putin as exactly what he is: a man trying to avoid the fates of those who came before him. To rule in Russia is to need to use autocracy to prevent mass revolt, a process which requires inherent manipulation:

Putin’s life project is to effectively recreate the KGB state, win the war in Ukraine and Make Russia Great Again. These projects are now intertwined because repression since Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine almost exactly two years ago has dramatically increased in Russia.

Putin drew two big lessons from Gorbachev’s rule: The most dangerous moment for an incompetent authoritarian regime is when it begins to liberalize (to paraphrase French historian and politician Alexis de Tocqueville). And the most dangerous thing a Russian leader can do is lose a war as the Romanovs did in World War I, which helped spark the Russian revolution in 1917. Gorbachev’s pulling out of Afghanistan in February 1989 signaled to Eastern Europe that the feared Soviet military was something of a paper tiger, and within nine months, the Berlin Wall fell.

Since the French Revolution, job number one for every world leader has been to avoid revolution. This requires buying off the citizenry with a series of unaffordable, unsustainable, and destructive subsidies which produce a weakened population that then requires immigrant aid in order to function.

Russia wants to use the West as its immigrant aid through the process of empire. If it conquers the West, a new hierarchy will emerge in which Russians are on top and Westerners do all the hard work for them. They do not want an end to hegemony, merely a hegemony which benefits them.

Putin admits as much when he advocates weak Western leaders who can be easily manipulated through traditional secret police tactics:

Last week, Mr Putin raised some eyebrows when he said he would rather Mr Biden take the presidency over Mr Trump in November.

“He’s more experienced, he’s predictable, he’s an old-style politician,” Mr Putin told Russian TV.

In my view, the greatest conspiracy theory is that the world runs on the systems it has created, and that what we are seeing is not some evil force manipulating those systems, but the standard operation of systems like democracy in which vote-buying is normal.

If you dislike globalism and Western neoliberal hegemony, the sane response is to look at what powers those, namely a system based on individual desire in which groups of people vote for free stuff from government. This includes most conservatives, who seem to want government to prosecute abortionists and others who offend the group morality.

Putin simply does what benefits him first and his country a close second. He may not be reading the tea leaves well, but he is trying to read them. Treating him as an alternative to a rotten system is to in effect make excuses for the failure of that system, instead of looking toward its center to see that it all emanates from the idea of equality.

Tags: ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn