The American Divide/A Right-Wing Manifesto

The American Divide:

                When discussing the left/right dichotomy in all walks where that division is applicable: philosophy, politics, structures, there is often a predilection to demonize the opposition. This is not in many cases intentional. Between these two broad categories there exists a gulf of differences which reject compromise on very fundamental levels. Perhaps an alternative ideology will develop some day which could force a coalition between the two broad strokes, but it would likely be assimilated into one of the two existing camps. As it stands the two look at one another across the ideological chasm with unreserved antipathy and mistrust at best, and outright hate and terror at the worst.

                Which leads to the question of application. Structurally how do these two forces play out within the same society where interaction is forced by happenstance? Is it enough to create a mongrelized one-dimensional ideological horde out of the opposition because to do otherwise would be to disarm yourself against an enemy who has no such conniptions? No, it is not. There exists a way to further disarm your opponents, and it lies in the opposite direction: less aggression.

                The current problems we perceive in today's western societies are not in fact a result of one side or the other. They both have influence and exist in roughly equal parts, otherwise the polarization we see today could not exist as one side would exert its hegemony uncontested regardless of the protests levied by the other.  The problems are a resultant of internal incoherence.

                We can bandy about which sides ideological framework functions best when approached pragmatically (I myself am inclined to agree with the Right), but at the end of the day when our culture and society is viewed as a single unit, that is irrelevant. The major structural flaw, which results in all the others, is the inability to properly elect for ourselves a suitable leadership. That is not to say that members of the current leadership are wholly inept (though there is a case to be made), but rather we are not electing for ourselves, but for everyone else. Each side imposes its leadership on the other when the views held by each side are, as we've outlined above, incompatible.

                Every person has a right to choose a leadership for themselves, and agreement on that leadership is not always unanimous, but when the leadership chosen is so radically different from nearly a half of the other side's choice that it is viewed not as opposition but as living anathema, a line has been crossed. And this is the issue that must be faced. That we have two different cultures, different nations, living side by side and electing for one another leader's.

               

                Arguments over any form of separation and the resulting  possible failure of the other side are irrelevant. If you're convinced one side will fail, or whether it in fact WILL fail, does not matter. Then you will simply have ideological converts by experience. The crux of the issues facing us today remain the same: we are becoming too different to live together, we have divorced one another in all but practice. All that's left are the tears and the paperwork.

A Right-wing Manifesto:

                As an aside, there are some who believe that a conversion effort, a cultural proselytization is the way to achieve victory for their side. Yet these self same ideological ministers are the same who insist on  the two positions, left and right, stemming from fundamental differences in valuation. In which case it's not possible to convert some. I agree, that in today's society we observe that the left has made its move and exists in uncontested supremacy in the hearts and minds of the people resulting in a number of personages with right tendencies forced into the box of the left. This is evidence in the language, and how it is the ideologies of the left which dictate the language and its developments.  And I agree, that an effort should be set forth to reach these men, these lost souls whose hearts cry for one thing, but their minds and actions speak to another.

                But what next? You cannot destroy the opposition. They have the right to exist, and choose for themselves their leaders. Do we simply allow ourselves to win the coming culture war, and then let it slip away again as agents of opposition continue to exist within our borders? No. As I have said, we cannot kill them, restrict them, censor them...these are all antithetical to basic ideological premises on the right and to commit any of these acts would be treason against our own intentions.

                The only option is separation. Not immediately, not even soon (there is much work to be done in rebalancing the cultural equilibrium) but one day. It is that, or the inevitable regression, or worse...the co-opting of the right by ideological tyrants who would drive us to slaughter, both of ourselves and the left in one clean stroke. Do not allow the latter. It discredits our position. It destroys us by our own hands more completely than a thousand years of festering impatience against the left.

Left/Right Structural Synopsis

A curious structural arrangement of the Left/Right dichotomy, in ideological and philosophical terms not political, is where each begins and where they end. Keep in mind that in both cases you are dealing with the same variables. That is to say that you can give the exact same situation to a person on the Left, and receive a radically different solution to the situation as you would from a person who is ideologically Right. How? Pragmatically there are solutions which work and those which fail, ideology does not come into play. However, because of the general structures employed by each side they function to varying degrees at different points along a timeline.

                Note: For clarification my definitions of left/right are roughly along those outlined by graaaaagh's tripartite breakdown, but lumping them  into broader categories: 

Left is- Left, Progressive and Idealist

Right is- Right, Reactionary and Realist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9myhzG_rQk

In terms of structure:

-The left places emphasis on the collective, in order to benefit the individual. A logical extension of egalitarian ideas, this ideology's final goal IS the individual's benefit, but on the terms of those who defined the collectives. The leftist state passes legislation which benefits a particular group, but their evidence of success is individual. For example, in aggregate, affirmative action has done nothing to benefit those groups it was created to elevate, but there are stories of people properly taking advantage of the system provided (this does not condone the system, but merely observes that people like Sonya Sotomayor played the system to maximize their outcomes).

-The right places emphasis on the individual, in order to benefit the collective, or society. A logical extension of Darwinian ideas, this ideology's final goal is the success of the species, but it simultaneously recognizes that this can be accomplished only by playing into human nature, not trying to manipulate it. A right state passes legislation which allows for the Darwinian experience to flourish on an individual level, but their evidence lies in the successes of society.  For example, the Industrial Revolution saw those capable of better living in the environment of an industrializing society competing, succeeding and failing on an individual basis, with a net benefit to society as human standards of living grew at unprecedented rates.

9 Trillion? O_o?

Wake up people, the Federal Reserve system is theft. They are stealing the money of the most free and productive nation to grace the face of the earth, and turning it into a mud pit of serfs, slaves and chattel for the world bankers, and it's all because you've been lied to and fed Cultural Marxism like it was water.

Wake Up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QK4bblyfsc

The Man Speaks the Truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqqCeHIZPGw

graaaaaagh puts into words, much more dispassionately and logically, what I've felt for a long time. Fight back, fight for your culture, for your world. Don't leave the culture to those without it, don't leave it to the 'Progressives' who are not creators, but wolves parading around in the skins of their betters, betters killed by their hands.

Those on the right who look down on artists, writers, musicians, people who contribute "nothing", you are dooming yourselves. If you won't speak in those tongues, if you will not write the books, paint the paintings and compose the songs...they will. And then you have surrendered your culture, your ability to define your culture to those who would see it destroyed.

Art exists because there is something within us as human beings which yearns for it. It is not an invention of the Left, art is an invention of men capable of invention, and it is the Right which invents. So I implore you, lift the pen, put it to the page.

Let us no go gently to the endless winter night. Let us not go gently.

Surrender: The Fallacy of Zeitgeist

“Where now are the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?
Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing?
Where is the harp on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing?
Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing?
They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow;
The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.
Who shall gather the smoke of the deadwood burning,
Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?”

            -King Theoden

                Where is the horn that was blowing? Find me my purpose, in the face of the superfluous. Tell me to look for it, in the howling dark of indifference. Ask me to answer the call, in the hearing of its hollow voice. Beg me to speak for the dead. Where is the horn that was blowing?

                Too many today are faced with this question. It is a question of zeitgeist, one which breeds degeneracy, and speaks in the flowery tongues of apathy. You ask to hear the horn, the singular pure sound of your own purpose as it rails against the crashing tumult which rages all around you. And you are told, not that you must seek it out on your own, but that it is wrong for you to search. These word will never be spoken, but they are implicit to anyone with eyes. They speak to you: You are small. You are cog. The whole is greater than you. It is circumstance which allowed you to succeed. The earth is more important, the animals of greater value, the wants and needs of your fellows need attending to, there is nothing more important than stopping people from dying, fighting is a waste of time, suffering is always wrong and privation is always perpetrated, never earned.

                These are the mantra's of the age. These are the drills which bore their patterns into the hearts and minds of the Men of the West.

                Is it wrong to be apathetic, is it wrong to bow your head and admit defeat in the face of Legion, of the insurmountable? Yes.

"We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness."

                -Ronal Reagan

                The zeitgeist of which I spoke earlier is one which makes the fault lines of the coming disaster apparent, but unassailable. There they are, brazenly exposed for all to see and yet nothing is done. It is because those with the capacity to do, to change, to fight, are disarmed. You are made apathetic. And perhaps you are not wrong. I have admitted that the machinations of our demise as a culture, as individuals, as a culture of individuals, are impregnable. The likelihood of affecting any change is negligible at best and as horrifying and intangible as a nightmare at its worst. You cannot win. But that is why this Age is one tailored for heroes.

                Here you have before you a task which cannot be accomplished, a mountain which cannot be conquered, a river which will not be stymied, a wilderness which has never been tamed. And you will die alone in the ascent, in the fording and amongst the trees. But unlike the teeming masses huddled around the base of the mountain, on the banks of the river, or the edge of civilization, you will have died well. You will have died a conqueror of reality, not its slave.

                I entreat those who have surrendered, you know who you are, to renew yourselves. Those of intellect, of mind, you seekers of truth, the listeners and the watchers, the subdued. I entreat you to recall that because an enemy cannot be conquered, well, this merely makes him a worthy adversary. This age kills men of spirit, of burning passion. Well I say if I am to have my fires quenched, I will at the very least have deserved it.

                You out there, you watchers on the wall, you listeners at the gate, for us, surrender was never an option. Even when it was the only sensible one. Let the impossible inspire you, not defeat you.

                 

Freedom

What is freedom? Is it as many would have us believe, that it is nothing more than the lessening of the burdens of choice? The easing from our shoulders of the true weight of decision? Would that I gave a man food, and water, shelter and clothing, warmth and strong walls; he would not be free. Freedom is not in things, freedom is expressed in action and lives in the mind.

                Were you to cut the shackles from a slave, a man who had known nothing but slavery from the moment he was born, and give him land of his own, seeds to grow there and the means to defend it, he would, by virtue of these possessions, be no less a slave. For slavery is learned, and so it must be unlearned. These things: land, food, defense, these are simply tools with which to learn freedom, to learn what it means to be free. It is through their utilization that one practices how to be free. And it is from the mind that all of this originates.

                Action, the expression of freedom is paramount. A mind which views the world one way and see's it another will not tolerate the world outside itself. A free mind demands it be expressed, it demands creation, it demands action. Without action, the free mind withers and learns to free itself only through the superfluous and gnawing acts of spite.

                It is for these reasons that I believe things, and the procurement of things, is vital to human life and happiness. Things are the tools, and a freeman must make use of the tools of freedom in order to learn to be free. But as with all tools, they do not serve a singular purpose and may be put to malignant ends. These tools of freedom, whatsoever they may be, are able to be used to enslave in equal measure, both by their giver and their user. The giver: by making the tools a reward not for work well done, for work chosen by the worker, but as a paltry treat given on whim with no sense of consistency. The user: by seeing the tools of freedom as freedom itself, thus enslaving themselves to transient and inconsistent objects. When your possessions become of greater value than your freedom, you will one day wake to find you have neither. Security is the road of slavery chosen by the user of the tools when put to maligned ends.

               

               

                How to learn freedom though? What are the specific tasks? They are only known to each man, for only he can know his own freedom. You cannot ask someone to be free for you. Even then though it is for each to decide for himself not all men are capable of thinking freely, or in a manner auspicious to its growth. Whether it be something inherent within them, or the slavish nature of their environment is irrelevant. There are some men who simply are slaves, and some who will till their last dying breath refuse the manacles laid upon them, though upon them they may lie. It is unknown when you finally grow into yourself, I imagine it is as certain as any surety where 7 billion people are involved; none at all. What's more, freedom is fluid. It is a thing, for it is conceived of, spoken of, and taught, though its exact nature eludes confinement. By defining freedom to a state of mind, I am in fact releasing it to the hapless chaos of billions of minds at trillions of moments, thus not defining what it is, but rather what it is NOT.

                At the end of all things I admit, I cannot define freedom. But I can say this:  Free Men, will always know one another. Free Men, will always find one another.

What is "Radical"?

That which is 'radical' is not based on empirical or evidentiary basis, but rather on relative differences between what is, and what is proposed. That is to say, that a radical political idea is not radical because it has no evidence to support it, but because it is so drastically different from the idea it is being proposed to replace.

Instead of radical, the word 'speculative' is better used. Socialism, in its pure theoretical form, is not radical for the United States (based on practice as it is now) but rather speculative. Similarly Libertarianism is not radical in the United States (based on the cultural mythology) but speculative.  These minute distinctions are of vital importance as so often in politics we see ideologies being wantonly labeled as 'radical' with no clarification as to what radical means.