So what is your fucking solution that has such broad appeal to stop it? I for one am tired of internet wizards who claim to know all the answers and yet somehow only offer worse alternatives or 'buts' on the issue.
Dictatorship? Pinochet tried to literally kill every leftist he could in Chile and guess who is president now! A freaking left wing government headed by Boric. Same with Spain and Portugal!
Absolute Monarchy? In your dreams! Most Monarchs these days are socialist anyway and nobody wants them in this country or any other so what the hell would it change?
Fascism? "HELL TO THE NO!!!" as if that fixes anything it's just antisemitism/racism mixed with garden Socialism!
Libertarianism? For all it's pro's people are drunk off the idea of exchanging liberty for security and safety net these days and thus they have no popular appeal! Coupled with their inability to realize that companies don't always benefit the masses and protectionism isn't always this great evil that holds people back.
The problem with combating the left is they have always embodied the 'different' and 'new' so when everybody is sick of the way things are or hate the way things were will always hate conservatism for embodying those things.
Calvin Coolidge for example was a great man and lead a great administration but was forgotten about and it wasn't for anything he 'did' but lack their of.
Society doesn't exist in a vacuum and technological change has caused these social shocks which has attributed to extreme ideologies gaining prominence again coupled with the fact that our generation really hasn't seen many examples of how terrible they are or are starting to view dictatorship as the best alternative of getting what they want both left and right.
Nice tirade, but it misses the point. A political system alone cannot hope to stop the Left, because they are fighting the war on a completely different level. At this point, regardless of what political system you choose, Left will subvert it. So despite the fact that literally
any of the systems on your list are better than where Left is taking us, none of them can provide a solution, because merely changing the political system
is not a solution in the first place.
There are some things that
have to be done, though.
Whatever the solution is, it has to reject leftist values such as equality. If you allow your enemy to dictate the terms of engagement,
you have already lost. Problem is that leftist values are appealing, especially to modern humans who tend to be on emotional level of toddlers.
First thing that is necessary is to provide something that will combat the Left on the emotional level - because that is where the Left has been winning since the beginning. Left provides a
dream of a better future, so Right has to offer something similar. This means nationalism, at the very least, and without accepting any of Leftist terms when it comes to discussion. Ideally, it would be something more than nationalism.
Second, it has to be understood that
controlling the government doesn't matter. Elections, political parties... none of that matters, at least at first. Right has to take over the media and the educational institutions - kindergartens, schools, universities - or else completely destroy them. Basically, it is necessary to copy the manner in which the Left has taken over the civilization: they didn't take over governments immediately. They started with taking over the means of indoctrination, and only when that was done, they took over the government. And by that time, it was too late to stop them. We have to do the same, but in reverse: problem here is that rich people were always leftist, and I do not know how to compensate for that. But taking over the media and the institutions (what Yarvin calls the Cathedral) is absolutely necessary.
This also means combating Left's discourse in historiography. Left has been
extremely successful at placing blame on right-wing ideas for literally everything, and then using labels to prevent pushback. First world war? It is the fault of either monarchs, or nationalists, or both (flash news: it was the fault of colonialism and economic globalisation). Second world war? It is the fault of nationalism and racism (flash news: no, Hitler actually started it because
socialist policies were causing German economy to fail).
Above is also why I see the idea of monarchy as important. It provides an emotional appeal: as I have pointed out before, monarch is
pater familias. Monarchy is family, expanded to the level of the state. Second, monarchy rejects the leftist in its basis. Democracy, fundamentally, reinforces the idea of socialism: that all people are equal. It is an inherently leftist system. Monarchy however is based on the idea of family, and rejects the idea of equality. That being said, monarchy is not strictly necessary to combat the left: other ideas such as ethnic nationalism may be successful.
But whatever the case, it will be a
slow process - and we are running out of time.