What Should The Right Wing Be?

[JagerIV]

Yeah, the eternal problem of "the right" is that its defined as nothing more than "not the left". I mean, even somewhere like here where were fairly right wing, what, 50% of the members are people who fell off the left wing train at some point?

Of all the major thought leaders, how many of the prominent ones are ex trochkites? I think moldbug might have been the one to mention this, that a lot of the right is composed of ex leftists, and since the most recent ex leftists are the ones with the closest connections to power and influence, often come to be the dominant players on the right.

For example, take a Dave Rubin, love it or hate it, but his relatively large amount of social capital which catipulted him to the relatively important place he occupies was built up from his time with the left. Jordan Peterson was old school left wing basically: he collects Soviet artwork, volunteered with I believe the Canadian equivalent of the Socialist party as a youth, and followed joung, which does not strike me as a particularly right wing activity.

Donald Trump in many ways is pretty close to a 90s democrat. His power an influence was built up by moving in the extremely liberal bubble of New York and TV.

The right lacks much of any ability to create power independent of liberal organizations: much of any power we do have is liberal defectors, which means the powerful in any sort of movent are going to tend to be the leftist power structure of 10 years ago.

 

[ShieldWife]

I do agree with ShieldWife to an extent, that small actions really do matter. So much so, by changing your community you can change the world.

But the Right must gain political power, and then, rightly or wrongly, use that power to crowbar the Left out of the institutions and slam the doors shut on them getting back in. For this, you need a grassroots movement that could come in from outside the swamp, but herein we run into the Right's notorious problem of refusing to organise. If you can surmount that hump, some very serious changes can be made.

Yes, the right does need to gain political power, and ultimately use that political power against our enemies. We can't afford to say "Well, our enemy has been shooting at us while we are unarmed, but now that we have the gun we should be better than that." Because that kind of attitude is a path to certain disaster. That said, our political power should remain grounded, no pun intended, in the grass roots less our supposed leaders twist our movements for their own corrupt ends.

But gaining that degree of institutional power is a long way off. I don't necessarily object to suggesting what we should do if we were to gain control of enough institutional power to threaten the left, but at this point such speculation may not only be useless, but divisive. Our primary focus now should be acting in what ways we can with our resources as they exist now - which primarily consists of our personal lives and actions. I would hope that if we raise our children, connect with our communities, pass along our values, and starve the leftist system that we can eventually build both the numbers and the power to cast off leftists institutions and put in place our own. Hopefully more wary of how those institutions can become corrupted within constant effort and vigilance.

 

[Navarro]

...the number of ways the ship has sailed and the cat has left the bag on anything vaguely approaching this makes your self-proclaimed title of nutjob quite accurate. You are fundamentally misunderstanding damn near everything about actual historic contexts, because arranged marriages have very nearly always, with only one exception to my knowledge, been extreme upper class economic considerations, those attempting to imitate them, or hideously oppressive and generally highly unstable social hierarchies with virtually zero social mobility and/or extreme commonplace violence.

And even then in medieval Europe arranged marriages tended to take the form of the bride and groom's parents mutually deciding on the match when they were both children, or for the lower classes there being a village matchmaker or such who would serve as a mediator, typically the local priest. I've certainly never heard of a groom essentially buying a bride from her father.

BTW to force an unwilling woman into marriage was seen as an evil act as far back as the composition of the Robin Hood tales. To get to what ITNOL wants, you'd have to go back to pagan times.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia points out:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: History of Marriage

The Catholic views of marriage

www.newadvent.org

Symbolic capture has largely given way to wife purchase, which seems to prevail among most uncivilized peoples today. It has assumed various forms. Sometimes the man desiring a wife gave one of his kinswomen in exchange; sometimes he served for a period his intended bride's father, which was a frequent custom among the ancient Hebrews; but most often the bride was paid for in money or some form of property. Like capture, purchase became after a time among many peoples a symbol to signify the taking of a wife and the formation of the marriage union. Sometimes, however, it was merely an accompanying ceremony. Various other ceremonial forms have accompanied or constituted the entrance upon the marriage relation, the most common of which was some kind of feast; yet among many uncivilized peoples marriage has taken place, and still takes place, without any formal ceremony whatever.

The "gilded cage" mentality has massively usually had the women hold a considerable say in her husband among the vast majority of the population, only when you have hardened and comprehensive caste systems like the fractal shitshow of India or extremely violent Thar cultures like the Middle East do the general populace of women get deprived spousal choice outside the upper classes. And the "homemaker" you so desperately want being the norm was a peculiar feature of the 1950s, a time when no small amount of women sought out their future husbands rather than being passive objects of desire. If they didn't want a particular man, he could not get her hand in marriage.

More to the point, ITNOL's ideal of "marriage" violates what seems from a non-Catholic perspective to be the Catholic Church's own clear teaching on the matter:

The Questions Before Consent

“The Questions before the Consent” are an important part of a Catholic wedding ceremony. True to its name, this moment entails the celebrant (priest or deacon) asking the bride and groom a series of questions immediately before they exchange their consent and are married. As the Order of...

www.foryourmarriage.org

“The Questions before the Consent” are an important part of a Catholic wedding ceremony. True to its name, this moment entails the celebrant (priest or deacon) asking the bride and groom a series of questions immediately before they exchange their consent and are married. As the Order of Celebrating Matrimony explains, these questions involve the couple’s “freedom of choice, fidelity to each other, and the acceptance and upbringing of children” (no. 60). While they are asked the questions together, each person must answer the questions individually. It is a solemn moment, as bride and groom pledge before God and the community their intention to undertake through God’s grace the vocation of lifelong marriage, a permanent union open to the gift of new life.

Celebrant:

[Name] and [Name], have you come here to enter into Marriage
without coercion,
freely and wholeheartedly?


The bridegroom and bride each say: I have.

https://www.archbalt.org/marriage-tribunal/consent-makes-marriage-the-theology-of-marriage/

The Catholic theology of marriage stems from the idea that free and mutual consent of a man and a woman makes a valid marriage. Marriage, validly contracted, is a lifelong covenant that cannot be broken.

For somebody who has made so much hay about how his faith informs everything ...

You're never getting the general population of women in gilded cages like that, because they never have been. Because they flat out can't in any example of a long-term system. Economics, in the bluntest and most primitive resource acquisition senses, doesn't work that way, you can't have things function anything approaching sensibly with nearly half the adult population being nothing but people-makers. And you're not back-tracking anything approaching a majority of the gains in self-reliance without exploiting a downright civilizational collapse that has cruel brute force be the only meaningful political determinant.

He doesn't care about that. He doesn't care about how practical it is, or what it would take to get there, or the effects. All that matters is that it's what he wants to happen.

Reducing the expectation of female labor is somewhat doable, altering the priorities so the family has some degree of primacy might be doable with a relatively mild economic breakdown, but you're not getting back the 1950s. The history of industrialization is covered in breaking traditional labor practices as economic requirements. Women went in the factories because there weren't enough men spare in the workforce, and they became the "homemakers" you idolize because there was such a bounty that the lower classes could afford to have the woman not earn anything. The story of the breakdown in, and many cases creation of, all the norms you want to claw back is the story of tradition not working in a contemporary context, on a basic economic level.

But you see, he doesn't want to have any sort of compromise on his views. Everything must be as he orders it to be so, and none may deny him.

So unless you want to convert the world to a peculiar variant of Mormonism by the sword, you're not getting those extremely narrow historic contexts back (and they're a bizarre hodgepodge of them rather bluntly contradictory, anyways), and if you do you're going to get rolled over by China, Russia, or literally anyone who doesn't as they surge ahead and end up with a greater sword than yours.

He doesn't care if his society can't defend itself. The only thing that matters is how strictly it accords with his vision of an ideal society.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Something I feel the Right must commit to, because it seems no one else will, is military independence. I myself am very grateful for the age of peace and prosperity the United States has provided us, but remaining America's dependent forever simply won't do. We must emphatically reject peace dividend for the short sighted folly that it is and dismiss wailing leftists who are more interested in virtue signalling than national defense and hard power.

Military might is the final arbiter of a nation's strength. Thanks to out of control leftism, strength is not in vogue. We must correct this before China and a one day economically recovered Russia feel like crushing soy boy bollocks.

 

[Cherico]

Something I feel the Right must commit to, because it seems no one else will, is military independence. I myself am very grateful for the age of peace and prosperity the United States has provided us, but remaining America's dependent forever simply won't do. We must emphatically reject peace dividend for the short sighted folly that it is and dismiss wailing leftists who are more interested in virtue signalling than national defense and hard power.

Military might is the final arbiter of a nation's strength. Thanks to out of control leftism, strength is not in vogue. We must correct this before China and a one day economically recovered Russia feel like crushing soy boy bollocks.

Plus you know look around the only other country in Europe that has any chance of matching you right now is well france.

Every one else is either aging into mass retirement, poor, has shit geography, or has a disfunctional government huge amounts of debt or some other kind of problem.

 

[Senor Hortler]

Something I feel the Right must commit to, because it seems no one else will, is military independence. I myself am very grateful for the age of peace and prosperity the United States has provided us, but remaining America's dependent forever simply won't do. We must emphatically reject peace dividend for the short sighted folly that it is and dismiss wailing leftists who are more interested in virtue signalling than national defense and hard power.

Military might is the final arbiter of a nation's strength. Thanks to out of control leftism, strength is not in vogue. We must correct this before China and a one day economically recovered Russia feel like crushing soy boy bollocks.

It's getting to the point in the UK where we seem to be actively losing the ability to become militarily independent. With the smaller military, the loss of production (and with it the skills as the now retired workers die off) we're going to have to spend a shit load training people who shouldn't have to be trained and even outsourcing the initial training overseas to more competent nations. Which is really fucking depressing.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Something I feel the Right must commit to, because it seems no one else will, is military independence. I myself am very grateful for the age of peace and prosperity the United States has provided us, but remaining America's dependent forever simply won't do. We must emphatically reject peace dividend for the short sighted folly that it is and dismiss wailing leftists who are more interested in virtue signalling than national defense and hard power.

Military might is the final arbiter of a nation's strength. Thanks to out of control leftism, strength is not in vogue. We must correct this before China and a one day economically recovered Russia feel like crushing soy boy bollocks.

I'm starting to think for all of the unneccesary paranoia it brought out inward, the cold war was one of the best things to happen to us. Not only did it advance technology to a level we havin't seen in decades. (We walked on the freaking moon for crying out loud) but it worked as a good motivator for other nations not to mess with each other. Whether we like it or not "Punch me and we all get blown to kingdom come." is a supisngly good motivator not to be ruled by blind political ambition. You still had satliete wars yes, but it wasin't superpowers threatening war on each other. It's amazing how times of more open peace cause nations to become a lot more cocky and reckless.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

It's getting to the point in the UK where we seem to be actively losing the ability to become militarily independent. With the smaller military, the loss of production (and with it the skills as the now retired workers die off) we're going to have to spend a shit load training people who shouldn't have to be trained and even outsourcing the initial training overseas to more competent nations. Which is really fucking depressing.

The military decline of Europe in general is a sad thing to behold. Whilst Russia at the very least has ambition to recuperate some of its former power, everyone else seems content to keep declining. There is no vision nor ambition for our elite (a government possessing such things could truly reclaim some of our lost glory), only the next election.

Well I've said why I think this has come to pass (peace dividend, confidence that America will always be there, out of control leftism spurning strength as a concept, etc) but what do you all think? Why is military weakness in vogue, especially among the Left?

 

[Senor Hortler]

The military decline of Europe in general is a sad thing to behold. Whilst Russia at the very least has ambition to recuperate some of its former power, everyone else seems content to keep declining. There is no vision nor ambition for our elite (a government possessing such things could truly reclaim some of our lost glory), only the next election.

Well I've said why I think this has come to pass (peace dividend, confidence that America will always be there, out of control leftism spurning strength as a concept, etc) but what do you all think? Why is military weakness in vogue, especially among the Left?

Probably the end of history mindset, coupled with completely forgetting what it was like pre-NATO. I think the UK was one of the few countries to meet the Americans request for NATO spending, and it still underspent to what was actually needed to mount an effective defence of our nation and of our assets and overseas shipping.

We have simply grown lazy because America's been there doing shit for us. The left especially seems to live in the perpetual 'now' and see history as a foreign country that will never be able to return, and with that mindset the idea that all 'war' will be between modern militaries and 3rd world dipshits that need to just be 'helped' to break away from tyrannical governments. The left has completely abandoned the idea that we could ever have boots on the ground against a peer power and America wouldn't be behind us. They assume that America, or the theoretical magical EU army would also be tossing bodies into the meatgrinder. As though men and women of these 'superstates' would be okay asking their men to die on our behalf.

If Turkey rolled on Greece tomorrow and America just shrugged and went 'not our issue' then what do we do? Is France supposed to be asking men to go die in Greece? Is the UK supposed to? Why? To defend the freedom of small nations? To hold back the islamic tide and secure Christendom? To defend a member of the EU? The ideal person in the mind of the leftist elite is a chubby, metrosexual consoomer with few children and a love of brown hordes of migrants. Their ideal person is uncaring about national interests, entirely fixed on minute to minute entertainment and is fundamentally soft. Are they supposed to be dropping into a conflict zone and putting steel to bone? Some twenty stone pink haired soy boy doing commando raids? They wouldn't even sign up.

The leftist worldview and the leftist ideal precludes military strength. You need to volunteer to defend your country; and not do it lightly. You have to be willing to walk into the line of fire for your country, and fundamentally for the ideals that it represents; so if you strip a person of the love for their country and the love for the ideals that founded that nation then you strip them of the capacity to wage war.

The UK used to be a proud nation composed of people that were proud to be part of it. They loved it; and they believed in what the UK was. A people that are unwilling to be proud of their nation are fundamentally incapable of defending their nation; and politicians know that. The issue of military spending is not something that many politicians care about because most people don't really care about it. We have become 'hopeless' in regards of our national pride. Why would we care about our national defence?

 

[Cherico]

Probably the end of history mindset, coupled with completely forgetting what it was like pre-NATO. I think the UK was one of the few countries to meet the Americans request for NATO spending, and it still underspent to what was actually needed to mount an effective defence of our nation and of our assets and overseas shipping.

We have simply grown lazy because America's been there doing shit for us. The left especially seems to live in the perpetual 'now' and see history as a foreign country that will never be able to return, and with that mindset the idea that all 'war' will be between modern militaries and 3rd world dipshits that need to just be 'helped' to break away from tyrannical governments. The left has completely abandoned the idea that we could ever have boots on the ground against a peer power and America wouldn't be behind us. They assume that America, or the theoretical magical EU army would also be tossing bodies into the meatgrinder. As though men and women of these 'superstates' would be okay asking their men to die on our behalf.

If Turkey rolled on Greece tomorrow and America just shrugged and went 'not our issue' then what do we do? Is France supposed to be asking men to go die in Greece? Is the UK supposed to? Why? To defend the freedom of small nations? To hold back the islamic tide and secure Christendom? To defend a member of the EU? The ideal person in the mind of the leftist elite is a chubby, metrosexual consoomer with few children and a love of brown hordes of migrants. Their ideal person is uncaring about national interests, entirely fixed on minute to minute entertainment and is fundamentally soft. Are they supposed to be dropping into a conflict zone and putting steel to bone? Some twenty stone pink haired soy boy doing commando raids? They wouldn't even sign up.

The leftist worldview and the leftist ideal precludes military strength. You need to volunteer to defend your country; and not do it lightly. You have to be willing to walk into the line of fire for your country, and fundamentally for the ideals that it represents; so if you strip a person of the love for their country and the love for the ideals that founded that nation then you strip them of the capacity to wage war.

The UK used to be a proud nation composed of people that were proud to be part of it. They loved it; and they believed in what the UK was. A people that are unwilling to be proud of their nation are fundamentally incapable of defending their nation; and politicians know that. The issue of military spending is not something that many politicians care about because most people don't really care about it. We have become 'hopeless' in regards of our national pride. Why would we care about our national defence?

That's what really weirds me out.

If your a member of your nations elite you really should love your own country just based on basic self interest. If a place makes you wealthy, powerful, and mighty then you should have some warm feelings about the place. Instead they shit on the places that give them everything and hate the people who raise them up.

Its so god damned stupid.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I mean, we live in an era of unprecedented comfort and decadence. Why should the degenerate metrosexual or bugman give that up for something he neither cares for or understands.

Obviously there are more sinister forces that wish to keep things this way. But a decadent and soft society is by definition an apathetic and weak society.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The UK used to be a proud nation composed of people that were proud to be part of it. They loved it; and they believed in what the UK was. A people that are unwilling to be proud of their nation are fundamentally incapable of defending their nation; and politicians know that. The issue of military spending is not something that many politicians care about because most people don't really care about it. We have become 'hopeless' in regards of our national pride. Why would we care about our national defence?

I agree with everything else you've said except this. Most people do feel ties to their birthplace and would like to see it continue. These individuals also tend to live in reality and are thus aware "shit happens." Threats can come out of the blue and it's better to be ready for them. I reckon there's more people thank you think (quietly, as is the British way) mortified over what has become of the Royal Navy. Strength, both moral and physical, is valued by the human animal.

The problem is we are ruled by one of the most out of touch and inept generations of politicians the world has seen since the Fall of Rome, further worsened by an echo of the Cold War (Communist subversion and following conquest of the institutions) jamming up and breaking the gears of society. It's a rather large mess, but I reckon there's a surprising amount of people who'd like that fixed.

 

[Senor Hortler]

That's what really weirds me out.

If your a member of your nations elite you really should love your own country just based on basic self interest. If a place makes you wealthy, powerful, and mighty then you should have some warm feelings about the place. Instead they shit on the places that give them everything and hate the people who raise them up.

Its so god damned stupid.

Why would they bother being proud of their nation though? They are in effect an international elite now. Nationhood has nothing to do with it for them. British Democracy, and by extension the British Elite, have nothing to do with Britain. It's a financial democracy, beholden to Wall Street, the London Economic Zone, etc. Any country is just as good as the next if all you do in those countries is live in gated communities and mingle only with other members of the economic elite.

Sure some of them probably aren't like this, Bowden was noted as having met Rees Mog and having heard the man say 'It's a tragedy what's been done to the UK' in regards to mass migration, the formation of the service economy and the gutting of our national pride. But for the most part a senior member of Parliament and some coastal businessman are effectively no different. When a man is capable of beaming billions around the globe, from anywhere on the globe in any one given moment then the value of the people in any given country; and the country itself for that matter becomes minuscule.

I agree with everything else you've said except this. Most people do feel ties to their birthplace and would like to see it continue. These individuals also tend to live in reality and are thus aware "shit happens." Threats can come out of the blue and it's better to be ready for them. I reckon there's more people thank you think (quietly, as is the British way) mortified over what has become of the Royal Navy. Strength, both moral and physical, is valued by the human animal.

The problem is we are ruled by one of the most out of touch and inept generations of politicians the world has seen since the Fall of Rome, further worsened by an echo of the Cold War (Communist subversion and following conquest of the institutions) jamming up and breaking the gears of society. It's a rather large mess, but I reckon there's a surprising amount of people who'd like that fixed.

True, probably just me being a doomer. The elites of our country I would agree are just terrible. They don't represent us in any meaningful way. Labour and Tory are just two sides of the sandwich which seems to be industrially forged to enforce globalism. You get to pick which flavour of salsa you want, smooth or spicy. But at the end of the day you're still only getting salsa. There is no democratic choice in this country; we simply bounce between two sides of the same globalist tentacle. Labour is the party of immigrants, gays and the disabled; and the tories are the party of slightly richer immigrants, gays and disabled. Both of them locked in a race to the bottom to see who can out 'the other side are the real racist' each other.

Boris has an 80 seat majority and is presiding over the single largest influx of illegal (and legal, the fucking borders are still open) migration in this countries history. It's a disgusting situation.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

That's what really weirds me out.

If your a member of your nations elite you really should love your own country just based on basic self interest. If a place makes you wealthy, powerful, and mighty then you should have some warm feelings about the place. Instead they shit on the places that give them everything and hate the people who raise them up.

Its so god damned stupid.

I agree with everything else you've said except this. Most people do feel ties to their birthplace and would like to see it continue. These individuals also tend to live in reality and are thus aware "shit happens." Threats can come out of the blue and it's better to be ready for them. I reckon there's more people thank you think (quietly, as is the British way) mortified over what has become of the Royal Navy. Strength, both moral and physical, is valued by the human animal.

The problem is we are ruled by one of the most out of touch and inept generations of politicians the world has seen since the Fall of Rome, further worsened by an echo of the Cold War (Communist subversion and following conquest of the institutions) jamming up and breaking the gears of society. It's a rather large mess, but I reckon there's a surprising amount of people who'd like that fixed.

Because the elities don't care. They are all globalists and all for civic nationalism. They don't care. Nations and cultures mean nothing to them.

They are all for more immigration and demographic replacement and weakening of the military.

People are made by education and cultures to hate their own nations, ethic group, ancestors, etc. Thus if you don't care about your nation or ancestors or birth place, why would you care to defend it or care about it being strong or weak?

Again, I have posted this before, an apparent Swede says that he doesn't consider Sweden his land, its basically nothing.

 

[JagerIV]

I think the military question is actually very easy: in most places, the Military is the closest thing the Right has to a stronghold in the government, and is a way for the Right to give resources to its allies to build its coalition (soldiers, relatively right wing military contractors who can shovel money into the Right wing parties).

Every, say, $100,000 dollars spent on education nets the left at least one dedicated voter, and possibly 1-20 depending how that money circulates, and probably puts something like $10-50k directly into leftist causes (teacher union dues, paying for democratic activists, excetera)

Meanwhile, a $100,000 dollars spent on the military supports at least 1 right wing voter, who might be putting a couple thousand into right wing causes.

Obviously then, you want to maximize government funding which helps your side and minimize government spending that helps the other side.

 

[Cherico]

So the question of what the right should be?

The current goal is survival, there are a lot of different people in the right because right now its a collection of people who do not agree with the current stream of madness that is the left of the modern day.

Libertarians, conservatives, royalists, traditionalists, the religious were all under the same gun, so what should the right be? Lots of disagreements but for now alive seems to work.