This may come as a shock, but our current political situation isn’t all that political. It’s a situation, it’s a problematic situation, and it is as it seems when it comes to the parties involved, but those parties are not political parties advocating for policy, they’re parties advocating for entirely different societies.
This may come out as a little confusing at first. Most moderate conservatives and progressives both agree that we live in the same society together, we eat the same food, we drink the same drinks, we fly the same banner, and we vote in the same elections. These facts are, for the most part, are not false. We are under one empire at the moment, however, we are far from unified when getting to the base levels.
Political Schism vs Societal Schism
Political schisms root themselves in politics while societal schism root themselves in questions of society. It’s in the name, it’s not hard to see, but what’s the granular difference between living in different societies verses living in different political spheres. Well, for one, politics mostly focuses on the higher level policy positions that are pragmatic. A society that has separate political parties may disagree on how much said society should tax, but they both agree there should be taxes. The same society may disagree on what the most effective solution to a city’s crime problem is, but they both agree on what crime is, what’s a city, and what crimes in said city are problems. While there are disagreements, the whole can come together to identify things that threaten them and therefore can define themselves collectively as a group working together against an antagonist. This is in opposition to societal differences. Two different societies will disagree on definitions about crime, good and evil, and if certain things like taxes are legitimate or not. These societal separations make these groups opposed to one another in very fundamental ways. If you have a society that disagrees on the morality of taxes, the tax policy of said society will more reflect ideological and moral convictions than any type of pragmatic policy. There would be much less compromise and cooperation.
Political schisms can be healed easily, societal schisms cannot be. A grand compromise that satisfies most and displeases the least can put a topic to rest. Even something highly controversial like adding a new territory as a fully integrated state in a federation can be done in a satisfactory way so long as both sides are of the same society and agree on right and wrong together. Economic concerns and voting concerns can be hashed out and agreements can come about because no one has any absolute convictions against a policy that the other side would stomp on. Even the nastiest of political schisms can be healed so long as everyone’s on the same page. Societal schisms however cannot be. These differences find their roots in questions of core identity, morality, and the methods used to interpret facts.
We live in a time of societal schism
If it’s not obvious where I’m going with this, I’ll make it obvious: The United States exists in a time of societal rather than political schism. We are not one people anymore, and likely haven’t been for a long time. Because of that, our problems are not political problems, ones that can be hashed over with a bit of policy and good faith, but instead is a war against competing societies that desire control.
Any justification of this notion feels like stating the obvious, but, since I am making a claim like this, I must state the obvious: The factions of America do not fundamentally agree on what matters. The bugmen who scatter cities don’t care for the right to own guns because they have little to protect. On the contrary, your corn-fed Mississippian farmer has livestock, family, and a community to protect and thus needs a gun to do it. These two groups of course will exercise their values through their position on gun control. The bugman will want no one to have guns in fear that guns will be used for violence, the Mississippian accepts violence as a part of life and wishes to take it into his hands himself. Both view each other as foolish and dangerous, these groups cannot coexist.
This allegory can be extended to many groups that fight. Those who are tolerant of abortion cite their desire for women to be free from constraint on their vessel of a body; Those who believe abortion is infanticide believe that women should be restricted from this practice due to concern of the unborn man. Those who wish for social welfare put the benefit of all at the forefront of their thoughts; those who reject it wish for a life without systematic dependence and influence from said systems on society. Those who are egalitarians posit some form of total equality to be necessary, even above humanity’s tribal nature; identitarians assert that humanity’s tribal nature is a positive good and that society should be built with it in mind. In all situations, these conflicts find themselves in the organization of society as a whole rather than in the realm of semantic policy proposals.
When a group of people are acting politically these days they are acting out societal schisms and are trying to impose their view upon society as a whole. Any organization that isn’t overtly an alliance between the different acts this way. All groups are attempting to impose some form of norm upon whatever they touch politically, only ever engaging with mundane politics with their own and their factional allies.
Because our problems aren’t political, our survival won’t involve (much) politics.
Politics must be given a diminished role when shooting for right-wing survival through the modern era. Casual voting, compromise with enemy groups, and mild policy proposals are all non-options for making sure we get our fair share. Getting riled up over the news is actively a harm to yourself and your cause. Caring about the ebbs and flows of policy and the economy on a granular level is a fool’s errand for the most part. Anything that legitimizes processes that work as pressure valves should be done away with, rather it’s voting in elections or individual violence, it doesn’t matter, both are bad uses of time, energy, and kill your side’s survivability.
Instead, what matters is much more tactical, cold, and grand set of actions. Demographic survival of your team and your allies is paramount to making it through the oncoming dark age. This can all take multiple forms, but primarily consists of the following:
- Conversion of people to your team using cultural influence.
- Increasing birth rates and child wellness of those on your team.
- Coordinating factional voting to maintain laws that keep your team in power.
- Ensuring that your team is dependent on as few hostile systems as possible.
- Economic and financial stability of allies and your own team, even if it’s at the expense of others.
These are all short term options for making sure that right-wingers survive through what’s to come. If these activities, or similar activities, are not seriously engaged with, rebuilding a right-wing society will be harder. Establishing strongholds will give right-wingers a base to expand off from following institutional failure. There will be institutional failure, even the institutions know they’re dying and make that fact loud and clear, the question is how do we ensure we get to be the ones who can rebuild?
Because our problem isn’t political, our solutions are not political.
This may be obvious at first glance, of course societal problems need societal solutions, but what that means in reality is much more complex. Once the system collapses under its own weight, we’re going to be left with only what’s basic and what’s stable. Political power is neither of these things.
Basic organizations are those systems and organizations that are base enough to not be killed by collapse. Fight-or-flight responses, the desire for love and belonging, friendships, and familial ties fall into these categories. When the organizations that keep the world running turn to rubbish, you can at least depend on your old friend or well-meaning family members to give you shelter, work opportunities, and defense. These types of relationships are all that people can depend on when things fall apart.
Our society currently is hostile towards these base institutions, deeming them “problematic” or “out-dated”. Our society demonizes nepotism, glorified promiscuity, and shuns the identitarian for preferring his own, however, these are facts about humans that just come naturally to us, lending to this organizational style’s biggest strength: If the hostility of these basic organizational structures are removed, then we’ll see these organizational structure quickly heal and re-establish themselves due to them being both simple and integral parts of the human identity.
However, these basic institutions are basic. It’s in the name. Even a small clan of 150 people, perhaps the most complex of the basic institutions, cannot project the power necessary to restore order to society. How will man make music, make discovery, and make art without some formal system to keep clans from stealing from and killing each other? How will man do math without the ability to educate the next generation in it? How will man further his population and success without proper structure to organize that success? The answer is simple: he won’t.
This is where complex institutions come in, institutions that need to be built or sustained. Analyzing our current system, we can see the rot from the fresh. Some aspects of our society can be brought forward without much harm. Most religions and right-wing associated philosophical movements can be saved without much reform. Some social movements, such as the FOSS movement, are compatible with the new society. Local businesses and manufacturing, at their core, are good structures that need just a bit of reform. Perhaps the libraries can be recovered too if we get the time. Those organizations that are right-wing or can become right-wing are what must be seized and defended, the less we have to build, the better the start of the new society will be.
However, some things are rotten to the core. Academia must go, the Federal government must go, most of our economic systems must go, the news must go, and big tech must go. All these things are necessary to be rebuilt or replaced, if they are to exist at all. Right-wing academics must learn to establish their own schools akin to how the early Christians did when Rome started to fall. Those interested in governmental systems must find a new uniting organization in the USA, if there will be a USA at all that is. New economic theories, or reviving old ones, are absolutely necessary to not starve after the provisional society is created. Big tech and the current always-reporting news cycle just needs to die.
All that is nice, but back to the main point: Political power is neither stable nor basic. The latter is obvious. Almost all organizations of political power are complex systems or depend on complex systems. Your mayoral election may be close and small, but its legitimacy lies in the fact that a bigger, more complex organization backs it. Without the USA backing the legitimacy of local governments, it’s unlikely said governments would survive. Maybe state governments can fill the power vacuum since they have a militia and therefore some staying power, but we shouldn’t bet on it.
The notion that political power is stable is bunk once realize that the only positions of political power available are ones of the current regime. It won’t be the USA’s president who restores order after the system fails as the president is tied to the system. The same can be said of congress and any other political tool of the machine. There’s a complex web of dependence between the government, private organization, and civil institutions that make the government intrinsically a being within the system. Just to take one aspect of this relationship: look at the news media’s relationship to government.
The news dictates who are in power. They tell the facts of the matter to the public who then can make decisions about who is in power. If the news universally demonizes a candidate, they’re never going to win outside exceptional scenarios. Even if you got a guy in there, there’s not much he can do. There’s always a bigger fish, especially when you’re in the system. If you put a target on your back by defying the hegemony of the system, you shouldn’t be shocked when suddenly the system aligns against you. Companies, academic institutions, the news, and even your own government will try to take you down if it means securing their own power. Attacking the challenger is a sign of loyalty, and loyalty keeps you safe, gets you promotions, and gets you the sweet nectar that is clout.
The source I cite for this is the Trump campaign, which, successfully challenged a cocky status quo, however, didn’t achieve the promised restoration of America. It didn’t make America great again. Every step of the way was full of challenges and blunders, some due to Trump’s incompetence, some because of the enemies he had. It didn’t matter if Trump was president, he has every legitimate institution against him. That’s not a good match up for anyone.
This story is boring. Everyone on the right knows it, but they don’t believe it. They don’t realize that political power in the system you wish to destroy is not worth the effort. It’s cool to see your guy in charge, but your guy is effectively committing career suicide for 4 years of stalling collapse. There’s nothing wrong with stalling, 4 to 8 years is perhaps a good deal in the right circumstance, more time to build is always welcome, but there is something wrong with expecting this move to be a form of restoration. Restoration requires restoring something, and putting people in power is not how you restore anything, unless that man is a monarch.
In fact, if you want a proper restoration of the government with your guy, you would need a coup, and the leader entering office is the last step of that coup. The first steps are aligning or creating the powerful institutions that can initiate it, something that I clearly have advocated for. Personally, I’m not a fan of a coup and believe it is more risky than letting it all fall apart and rebuilding, however, for those interested in the concept, understand that the priorities of your actions must lie outside of voting-based politics.
The solution to our problems are not political solutions, they’re going to need to be societal ones. Anyone concerned about the fate of society must recognize this fact and operate within it. They shouldn’t fight for candidates and policy, but structures and organizations that will keep themselves, their kin, and their allies safe. In the long term, these structures and organizations must be taken forward to re-establish society. Without these structures, it’ll be much harder to save society. If it’s harder, then there’s a greater chance right-wingers will be left in the dust, allowing for something different, possibly worse, to take over.
All this, practically, means getting involved in building, seizing, or sustaining something overtly right-wing. It can be a company, an art group, a farmer’s market, a religious movement, or a mutual-support clique, it does not matter. So long as the movement overtly contributes to the survival of your team and its allies, it’s a good use of time, energy, and effort to take.