The reality of any on-the-ground political effort to the right of Mao tends to be plagued by varied ideologies, apathies, good-perfect-enemy-ism, anarchic utopian dreams, zealous libertarian evangelism, and pathetic decorum-ism. As a result, it tends to be the “moderates” – representing a third-way-ism conducive to sabotage of rightist goals – who drive agenda.
These moderates can affect this by being the majority opinion, or simply by being the most intolerant (of different ideas) group in the room.
We must, then, build out a coalition that can represent both the largest representative bloc on the right, and also be the most intolerant (of any ideas to the left) group in the room in order to begin to shift policy rightward beyond the threshold of defeat by the modern left. This coalition must hold firm in order to defeat, first, the GOPe RINOs, and, second, the left. That order is significant, as the left cannot be successfully engaged by the right until their blockers, the RINOs, are defeated.
However, to coalition build on the right is to herd cats. Somebody could show up, suggest limiting the government to the exact dimensions authorized by the Constitution and not one iota more, and he would lose half the room for being too radically anti-government, and another third for being a statist. There is, seemingly, no way to present a positive, uniting vision around which the right might unite except in the vaguest, most nebulously superficial appeals to “freedom.” No vague obfuscation of this sort will ever work to hold a coalition of rightists together, as the coalition to be built will necessarily be one of too many chief ideologues, and not enough pragmatist Indians. That obfuscation only works on the left.
This all makes sense when you take a higher-order perspective of the situation. The right is not a cohesive bloc at all, but rather it is, itself, already an unsteady coalition of all entities not explicitly leftist: libertarians, right-anarchists, traditionalists, populists, nationalists (in this context: patriots), Christian nationalists, and so on. The left, however, is close enough ideologically between its primary factions of Progressives (bureaucratic Young Hegelian utopian zealots) and neo-Marxists (destructive Young Hegelian utopian zealots) that they can just keep driving towards their goals without much argument about where they’re heading.
We want to thank Mike Belcher for this Op-Ed.
Please direct yours to Editor@GraniteGrok.com.
Also, when the left gets their way in government, they create more problems for government to “fix,” and more opportunities for their program to expand, and coalitions to endure perpetually, whereas a right victory yields fewer problems for them to fix, and ultimately to the dissolution of their coalition as unnecessary. This goes a long way toward explaining why those who want to win will always have the upper hand over those who merely want to be left alone.
So, then, if we cannot reasonably advance a positive vision to unite rightists against those who want to win we must, obviously, advance a negative vision to unite rightists and make them want to win. Now, here a “negative vision” is akin to a “negative right;” it means to advance a vision against something in order to be free of it, rather than for something to have it. The thing that must unite us, and that we must defeat, is Communism, and it has already arrived in America. It is, in fact, already the foremost operating principle of the federal government (see “Equity”, and Lysenkoism), and more and more state governments also.
Thus, anti-Communism as a negative vision becomes the future and hope of the right, and of the coalition, we must now build. This is the common strand that unites us for the very simple reason that if it does not, and we fail in our task, it will destroy us – each and every one of us. We must pursue this coalition along the paradigm of political warfare, as (through no choice of our own) we are not currently in peacetime. This is a wartime conservative doctrine, though “conservative” doesn’t nearly do it justice. We are no longer looking to conserve. The conservation of this remnant – this extant, festering corpse of our republic doesn’t motivate us: it just cannot. We are here for a refounding, a remoralization, and a political counter-revolution.
To advance this doctrine we must, for the moment, subordinate our own individual preferences to this broader goal. We must see the enemy clearly for what it is: a dogmatic and zealous cult of death bent on devouring our families and communities. That isn’t hyperbole. This isn’t simply for a better future, as politicians are known to say. We must do this to ensure any future at all. Everything is on the line now. We must hang together, or surely, we will hang separately.
Be an anti-Communist.
