Attack Until We Crack

I hope everyone has been enjoying themselves. But let’s get real now. While Trump’s victory was a tremendous achievement, the situation remains extremely grim. The election results demonstrate that basically half of the current population of America is in the grips of the left, either as zealots or complacent followers. This is the product of years of indoctrination through every major sector of American culture – the institutions of education, the arts and entertainment sectors, and the news media – which are all firmly under the control of the left. This election doesn’t change that one iota. Unless the right figures out a way to take over those institutions – something they have never done and that no one is even seriously talking about – the historic American nation is doomed. Without accomplishing that as well as dealing with the demographic issues that will tip the electorate permanently to the left, it’s far from clear that Trump will even be able to win re-election in four years, let alone put America on some kind of path to greatness. We are not even close to making America great again. The accurate campaign slogan would have instead been: Make America Slightly Better For At Least A Little While. Doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, does it?

There is so much to do, and, more importantly, so much to figure out how to do in the first place. But I’d like to suggest a broad plan that has two parts.

Attack

We are hearing the inevitable calls to unite the country. Forget that. Do not be seduced. No unification. The right is being crushed in this country. We are a desperate underdog. Do not lose sight of that because of Trump’s victory. We just gained a tiny bit of ground, but are still completely surrounded and massively outgunned by the enemy. Nothing at all should be ceded to the left. Our only hope is to advance as aggressively and quickly as possible. Every governmental and social tool available must be employed to fight the left. We must develop methods for making the leftist university professors, journalists, talk show hosts, actors, artists,  bloggers, activists, etc., feel every bit as alienated, dispossessed, disenfranchised, and hated in their own country as the right now feels. This, not unification, is the only way that we can preserve the historic American nation. Do not let your natural empathy for your fellow countrymen cloud your judgment. They are, in a very real way, the enemy. The ideas they believe and the people they choose to lead will destroy your way of life and the lives of your descendants. Until we can firmly establish a culture where they are almost universally mocked, scorned, and reviled, you and your progeny are in serious danger.

But won’t such a merciless and brutal approach just lead to an endless war between the left and right in our country, where the victor of any battle then proceeds to punish the other side with any means available? Yes. Of course it will. But the left already has that strategy, and has employed it for many years. The left has been using the full, formal apparatus of the government along with all the cultural institutions to crush the right, and with tremendous success. What the right needs to do now, desperately, is the same thing that the left has been doing. The right must cease with the idiotic strategy of unilateral surrender. Trump’s election victory is but the opening salvo in the real fight that has just begun. No reconciliation. No unification. Advance. Conquer. Destroy.

Crack

But can there be eventual unification? I don’t see how. (The great Bill Vallicella doesn’t either.) The left and the right seem to have fundamental, irreconcilable differences. And the second part of my suggested strategy is that we use that very fact to achieve a lasting and positive solution: separation.

Those on the right would be (or should be) happy to separate. Many fantasize about it. We just want to carry on our ways of life in peace. The left never talks about separation. Why? Because they have been destroying and eradicating the right from the culture. They are beating the right so soundly and comprehensively that there is no motivation for them to want secession. And that motivation is precisely what we must provide. Through relentless, successful attacks on the left, we must cause them to want formal separation from us just as much as we already want separation from them. And that mutual desire can be the basis for a legal pathway for separation.

Right now we have an opportunity. The left is having a giant, collective meltdown about Trump. We should pounce on this opportunity and offer the left an out. Let’s hope and encourage Trump to keep saying the most “sexist”, “racist”, “Islamaphobic”, “bigoted”, etc. things that he possibly can. And with every hysterical, sobbing reaction of the left, we should say to them: “Do you want out yet?” Let’s use every tool we can to punish, crush, and defeat the left while, simultaneously, every step of the way, asking: “Do you want out yet?”

This seems to me the humane and sensible solution to our deeply divided culture. Forcing the left to realize this is both kind as well as defensively wise. It’s kind because it will ultimately allow the left to establish a state of their own, one where they can officially enshrine their leftist values to their hearts’ content. It’s defensively wise because it will prevent the left from permanently defeating and subjugating the right. The right needs a new state, one with a formal structure that protects against the left in ways that the USA does not.

So, let us now attack until we crack.

Criticus Ferox

Criticus Ferox was relegated to the basket of deplorables because he refused to embrace the vilification and destruction of his nation, culture, race, sex, and way of life. You can contact him at: criticusferox@gmail.com

View All Posts

33 Comments

  1. Now is the time to call a constitutional convention. Its purpose wouldn’t be to change the meaning of the original Constitution (the real Constitution) but to reaffirm that meaning, express it more clearly, and provide more safeguards to prevent its corruption. The revised Constitution would expressly require the central government to devolve most of its arrogated powers back to the States, where those powers belong. It would leave a lot of room for States to do what the central government is now doing, so that devolution would be attractive to those who believe in such things as single-payer health-care, carbon taxes, etc. Voting with one’s feet would then have real meaning. There would be States with minimalist governments and States that try to maintain the entire apparatus of cradle-to-grave welfare and heavy regulation. I know which States would gain population, and which would lose it — the Blue Model would die in a flaming death spiral. Anyway, here’s my post about it: https://politicsandprosperity.com/2016/11/09/polarization-and-de-facto-partition/. And here’s the proposed rewrite of the Constitution: https://politicsandprosperity.com/a-constitution-for-the-21st-century/. Comments are welcome.

  2. Let’s say that the US splits in two different nation states. Given the way leftists and rightists are distributed, I would expect that a lot of conflict would continue in each of them, since there will be leftist predominance in cities, and rightist predominance in rural areas. So, at most, this would seem to diminish the degree of conflict to some extent, but not so much (and that’s leaving aside all of the negative effects of the split, but let’s stipulate there are none).

  3. Angra,

    Presumably if there were either some strong form of federalism or the U.S. were to break up into separate nation states, movement between states would still be fairly easy; and it would soon become desirable for a decent number to move. There would be pains with the transition no doubt, but if you want to have your own Venezuela in California you could and I wouldn’t expect as much conflict over the long haul. Cultural Marxists will of course resist this because it goes against their plans. Many conservatives too will resist because of their penchant to maintain the status quo.

  4. AR-15,

    I was considering a split into two nation states, rather than stronger federalism. I don’t think either scenario would resolve the conflicts, though, even if more federalism might temporarily improve some of them.

    With regard to the first scenario, which is the OP’s proposal, I would say:

    a. Movement between countries is hampered by borders, and in fact, if there is one nation state favoring less border restriction and the other one building walls, it seems to me moving from one to the other would not be easy.
    In fact, while moving from one state to another is legal, it’s costly, in terms of money, jobs, social relations that are lost, etc.
    In fact, we haven’t seen any significant movement of people to states more in line with their political views. At most, they go to different neighborhoods.

    b. Generally, it seems rural areas lean right, whereas cities lean leftist. For example, Texas is overall more conservative than California, but Clinton won in most large cities in Texas, and Trump won nearly as many counties in California as Clinton; in total, he got about 1/3 of the votes in California, but 1/3 of the population is more than enough for significant conflict.
    That would remain the case if the US were to split in two countries, as far as I can tell.

    The second scenario – e.g., more federalism – would be resisted by those who think that power to the states is a problem, not a solution – not to mention opposition to the Electoral College.
    But that aside, the matters of the cost of moving and rural vs. urban areas (see above) would remain.
    Additionally, Latinos are overall for bigger government, and there is no good reason to think that that will change. As their population grows faster than the general population (even without immigration), one would expect further support for big government across the states, even if there is more federalism.

  5. Sigh. After this post, I would expect a little less innocent outrage when someone suggests that this blog has an alt-right tinge. This piece of unhinged, mostly contentless vitriol could have almost been written by…oh, I dunno, maybe a blogger whose initials are VD, for example. Not that I think that’s who Criticus Ferox actually *is*. But the influence is undeniable. Sweet, a torture metaphor for angering the left. Just what is needed. But the alt-right always thinks that what is needed is being as unhinged and nasty as possible. They mistake it for useful strategy. Which is a joke, even from a strategic point of view.

    It’s a shame to see such a young, ostensibly conservative blog go this direction this fast. Hopefully it’s just one or two contributors.

    I write this as an extremely conservative cultural commentator myself. But this is ridiculous.

    And, no, I’m not posting this comment to waste a lot of time in “dialogue” with those who love the post. I’m just posting it to put the comment out there.

    • If this strategy is to be discarded, what strategy do you propose in its place? Clearly whatever the conservative movement has been doing in the past 60 or so years hasn’t been working very well.

    • Those pesky alt-righters! I thought Hillary had shown everyone how mean and bad they are once and for all, and banished them to the dark corners of the internet.

    • I respect CT, but this post sounds too militant. It objectifies “the left” as the enemy who we must “conquer” and “defeat”. I disagree. We must conquer and master ourselves, and then convince “the left”. I seek immersion, not separation. I seek truth and conversion, not conquer and defeat. If the liberal media and the university wants to depict us as silly, crude, sexist, and racist, then let our life be the counter-narrative. If they want to depict us as stupid, then our arguments be the counter-narrative. Cultural change doesn’t begin with concessions from “the left”–it begins with us and extends outward in concentric circles.

      Master yourself. Serve the poor, the weak and old. Know truth. Insist on it and your arguments. Love your neighbor, even those who persecute you. Pray, and do.

  6. Criticus,

    You are, in my view, exactly right concerning the issue of secession. In fact, the day of the election, but before Trump was elected, I wrote an essay stating that regardless of the outcome, secession was still necessary. After all, would a marriage where the wife views her husband as an irredeemable racist/sexist deplorable, and the husband views the wife as an immoral degenerate, last? And more importantly, should it last? Or is not separation preferable to such a relationship.

    Furthermore, just imagine, in a conservative/genuinely right-leaning nation, it would be much easier, during elections, to actually tackle substantive issues and vote for policies and politicians that you positively want, rather than often simply voting because you fear and loath the opposition so much that you will / must support your candidate no matter his personal faults or failings….just as we saw with Clinton and Trump (although I like many things about Trump).

    Anyway, my short essay can be found here:

    https://reconquistainitiative.com/2016/11/08/the-case-for-christian-secession/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

    • I just read and liked your post. Yes, I think the marriage analogy is apt and have thought it that way too. I do worry that there is one fundamental logistical problem here in that I don’t think the left will ever want to let us go. As much as they hate the big, bad right, they need us because we are the ones who actually build and run the infrastructure and pay the lion’s share of the taxes. The left’s coalition of moochers depends upon us propping up the whole system. I don’t see how to get around this problem. You mention _de facto_ secession, but that seems to me to be either war or something that is ineffective (e.g. everyone moving to Idaho). I think what would be required is _de jure_ secession if it were to work.

      • Good Evening Criticus,

        Good to see you here and thank you for your comment.

        Again, I completely agree with you: as much as they despise us, I think that the left, or at least some on the left, do indeed know that they cannot survive without the productive right being beholden to them. I mean, just to take one example, does anyone think that a leftist “gender studies” professor could make anywhere the amount of money that she makes today at a university without being subsidized by the very deplorable tax-payers that she despises? Of course not.

        Furthermore, while I believe that some type of de facto secession could be theoretically made to work, practically speaking, full and formal secession would be best. And the way to achieve that, at least in part, is to not only attack the left to the point that they find our joint existence unbearable, but also to make them believe that they can survive without us. This way, as you said, it will allow them to think that secession is their idea and in their best interests, thus motivating them to leave on their own fully believing that they can easily survive without us rightists.

        Finally, it is also important to note that should secession ever occur, the nation that would be created as part of that secession would need to institute even deeper political defenses to prevent the left from ever being able to regain the cultural hegemony that it has today. That is a point that cannot be forgotten.

      • “Finally, it is also important to note that should secession ever occur, the nation that would be created as part of that secession would need to institute even deeper political defenses to prevent the left from ever being able to regain the cultural hegemony that it has today. That is a point that cannot be forgotten.”

        Absolutely. That is essential.

        Your idea of getting the left to think that they can go it on their own is very interesting. I like it. But I wonder whether it could really work. There are very intelligent people at the highest levels on the left who presumably will not fall for it.

  7. This piece of unhinged, mostly contentless vitriol could have almost been written by…oh, I dunno, maybe a blogger Lydia McGrew.

    How about giving an argument, Lydia? Yes, we can see you are very emotional. (Feels good doesn’t it?) We’re used to that from the left, not so much from the right. How about trying to reign in your emotions for once like a proper warrior and, instead of notoriously making enemies with would be allies, either (again) giving an argument or aiming your resources elsewhere? Give it a try. It’s for the greater good.

  8. Criticus,

    You said:

    “Your idea of getting the left to think that they can go it on their own is very interesting. I like it. But I wonder whether it could really work. There are very intelligent people at the highest levels on the left who presumably will not fall for it.”

    I think that the way to go about achieving this involves a four-fold process. First, stop the left’s advance so that they no longer believe that their progressive march is inevitable; make them realize that they will have to live with the right and that the right is not changing its mind. Second, begin to counter-attack against the left; make them believe that they will lose the “progress” that they have achieved. And actually make them lose the progress for real. Third, while attacking the left, spread the idea that the only way to make the battle stop, and for them to stopping losing or potentially losing their gains, is via secession; also play on their vanity, ego, and virtue-signaling by telling them that “of course” the left can survive without the deplorable right…they are the left after all, and they are all about science, facts, and rationality, unlike the racist and sexist right, so they will obviously survive without the right and its in their best interests to do so. Spread this idea so far and wide that the grass-roots on the left come to accept it. And then, finally, fourth, encourage the election of a leftist populist who will respond to the desire of the grass-root’s left to secede, as doing this would undermine the ability of any higher leftists to stop the leftist secession from happening. In essence, create a Trump on the left, but have his main issue be secession from the right.

    And now, for the good news for us on the right: Trump’s election has just helped us achieve step one and possibly even part of step two. The process begins, but we just need to keep it going.

  9. There is some truth to what Criticus is saying here. Those on the left have pursued a relentless, zero-sum strategy in a headlong rush toward a cultural and political revolution that, by and large, would make Karl Marx and Wilhelm Reich proud. As a result, the leftist revolutionaries of the mid-20th century and their disciples are now the establishment in every major power structure in the U.S. (except, perhaps, the House and Senate for the next four years). I also tend to agree with Criticus’s claim that, “Unless the right figures out a way to take over those institutions – something they have never done and that no one is even seriously talking about – the historic American nation is doomed.”

    On the other hand, the approach Criticus proposes differs in at least two important ways from those used by the left. First, when radical leftists were a comparatively powerless minority, their strategy was not to try and advance as quickly and aggressively as possible by, “develop[ing] methods for making the [rightist] university professors, journalists, talk show hosts, actors, artists, bloggers, activists, etc., feel every bit as alienated, dispossessed, disenfranchised, and hated in their own country as the [left] now feels;” at least, not all at once. Rather, by and large they pursued more of a Trojan horse / wedge strategy: get your message across under the aegis of “tolerance” and “diversity.” Get a few key people in power here, and a few key laws on the books there, then use that as a beach head for further attack. (Yes, I’m aware of the zapping of the APA in the early 1970s, and so forth.) My point is that the brainwashing tactics of the Orwellian “waging peace” campaign would never have worked to the degree that they have unless there was already an organized and energized power base to draw from. Were conservatives to pursue a scorched earth policy now, it would likely only serve to confirm the left’s narrative about us: we’re reactionary; we’re the “party of no,” we’re “haters,” we’re “on the wrong side of history,” and so forth.

    Second, the left’s aim has never been to make things so odious for people on the right that we want to secede from the Union. An outright, in-the-open power struggle of the sort Criticus proposes would only serve to incite the *actual* racist elements in our society toward violence, and would take us closer to open civil war. “Attack and crack” is a nuclear option in my book, and I would take what we currently have over military conflict any day.

    Beyond all this, there is an even deeper reason for those on the right to reject the “attack and crack” approach: it is simply off the table for anyone who sincerely intends to follow Jesus Christ. Any Christian who might consider a plan like Criticus’s needs to re-read Peter’s first epistle; especially chapters two through four, not to mention the “beatitudes” portion of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter five. Yes, not all conservatives are Christians, or even religious. But a sizeable portion of us are. The “attack until we crack” strategy would only end up dividing conservatives amongst ourselves. The “we” who crack first will be conservatives, not the U.S.

    Okay, so what *should* we do? The following is by no means a complete strategy, but here are a few suggestions:

    First and foremost, social conservatives need to develop and articulate a positive vision of the good society in a way that ordinary people can understand and appreciate. Think of King’s “I have a dream” speech, but with modification. As Proverbs 29:18 says in the ESV, “Where there is no vision, the people cast off restraint.” We’ve lost our vision and the people have cast off restraint. By contrast, leftists have a vision of the good society but it can only be sustained through deception, force, and technological intervention—artificial insemination for lesbians, abortion and AIDS drugs for the promiscuous, plastic surgery and artificial hormone injections for the gender-confused, and so forth. Leftist ideology produces broken people, dysfunctional relationships, and fragmented communities. Only a social conservative model of social life can be sustained voluntarily, over a long-term, and on a massive scale. After decades of social experimentation, our nation is a social and moral wreck. Conservatives need to cast a positive vision for 21st century America if we’re going to make any lasting progress.

    Second, on a local level I think we can push back against leftists by adopting some of their tactics. “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26:5). For example, if anyone calls you a bigot or a homophobe, point out that they are guilty of committing a textbook microaggression against you. If someone calls you islamophobic because you are concerned about a large influx of Muslims into the U.S., ask them to explain to you what Islam teaches about infidels, and ask them to show you *from the Koran* where it teaches this. You might also point out that, to the degree that leftists stereotype conservatives as racists and homophobes, they are probably perpetuating a stereotype threat among some of us, as recent news stories seem to indicate.

    Third, we need to, “strengthen what remains and is about to die” (Revelation 3:2). If you hear of conservatives being oppressed by the left, contact them and give them your support. For that matter, when you hear of people on the left voicing support for us, like Neil Midgley did in his Telegraph article, “As a Gay Man, I’m Horrified that Christian Bakers are Being Forced to Surrender Their Beliefs,” contact them to let them know you appreciate what they said / did.

    Along similar lines, we need to be compassionate and supportive toward those who struggle with same-sex attraction or gender confusion. Those on the left have been exceedingly successful at propagating the myth that if you’re same-sex attracted or bisexual or ‘trans’ whatever, you’ll only be happy if you embrace these biologically-maladaptive beliefs and desires as your identity. We need to counter that myth with the truth. If a person is same-sex attracted, their sex drive is not functioning properly any more than someone with pica who craves laundry detergent or couch cushion foam or cigarette ashes has a properly-functioning appetite. If a man believes he’s a woman, he has a disordered sense of self, just like anorexics or people with healthy bodies who think they’re supposed to be paraplegic have a disordered sense of self. On that note, I’m grateful for folks like Doug Mainwaring, Roberto Oscar Lopez, Charlene Cothran, and others who have come out of the ‘gay’ lifestyle and now speak out against it. More people need to know that the left’s narrative on sexuality and gender is both factually flawed and corrosive.

    Fourth, no amount of strategizing and the like will take hold unless we practice what we preach. “Watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Timothy 4:16). The left loves it when conservatives, especially prominent ones, fail morally. Google “George Rekers” for a good example of this. On the other hand, people around us need to see concrete examples of what a good marriage and family life looks like. They need to see men who love their wives and children, and who are willing to sacrifice being further up the corporate or academic ladder than they otherwise might be for the sake of their family. They need to see intelligent women who love being wives and stay-at-home mothers, and who praise and respect their husbands.

    Finally, we need to be in it for the long haul, and we need to keep our current social climate in perspective. The devil’s war against humanity has been going on for centuries, and at the end of the day people on the left are not really our enemies. “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, and against the powers of this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12).

    Eventually, one way or the other, the West will fall. No civilization lasts forever. Great nations all seem to follow more or less the same pattern. Contrary-to-human-nature social experiments will come and go, but social structures faithful to the created order will outlast them.

    • Philosofarmer,

      Although there is a great deal to interact with in your comment, for the moment, I just wanted to focus on this point:

      “Eventually, one way or the other, the West will fall. No civilization lasts forever. Great nations all seem to follow more or less the same pattern. Contrary-to-human-nature social experiments will come and go, but social structures faithful to the created order will outlast them.”

      This is why I, for one, think the need for secession is so vital, for I see parallels with the Roman Empire. In essence, when Rome was starting to collapse, although the Western Roman Empire eventually fell, the Eastern Roman Empire remained as Byzantium for another thousand years; and this is what I see with the US in that if secession does not occur then the whole country could collapse and separate anyway, but in a less than pleasant manner. And yet, if peaceful secession does occur, then one half of the US could survive for hundreds of more years even if the other portion collapses into disarray.

      • I’m not opposed to secession in principle, but I have serious concerns about how it would work and whether it could be done peacefully. It didn’t work out so well when South Carolina tried it in 1861, and leftists are already falsely accusing us of wanting to return to the Jim Crow era.

  10. Hi, Philosofarmer. I spoke a bit loosely when I said that we should do exactly what the left has been doing. Yes, they may have been more furtive and gradual in their takeover. (Although they certainly aren’t very furtive now.) But that’s not the point. Nor is the point whether they intended to make the right want to secede. The point is that they _have_ brought about conditions that make the right want to secede and that we should bring about the same conditions for them. Is that a “nuclear option”? I was not pushing for armed conflict. Just the opposite. The point here is to get the left to willingly agree that we’d all be better off apart.

    What you say about Christianity is very interesting to me because it questions how deep our alliance goes. Christianity is certainly a central part of the historic American nation. I would like to preserve a country that is safe for Christianity, where Christians can live and practice in peace and without oppression. I certainly want to do that much more than the left.

    But if your remarks on the Christian approach here were true, then I would think that Christians are incapable of preserving the nation. I would think that their deepest allegiance is to a religion that ties their hands behind their backs and accepts subjugation, dispossession, and eradication over fighting to win.

    “Finally, we need to be in it for the long haul, and we need to keep our current social climate in perspective.”

    The long haul? The historic American nation is barely alive. Do you want to save it or not? I get the sense that you conceive of yourself primarilyy as part of a cosmic struggle for good over evil rather than an American fighting to preserve his nation. And your cosmic view is a problem when it comes to actually doing the latter.

    So, _if_ Christianity requires the things you say, we’ve got a problem. My suggestion to Christians who think like you is to step aside and let those with the will to fight get the job done. We need to bring a gun to a gun fight, not a bible.

    • Criticus,

      You said:

      “But if your remarks on the Christian approach here were true, then I would think that Christians are incapable of preserving the nation. I would think that their deepest allegiance is to a religion that ties their hands behind their backs and accepts subjugation, dispossession, and eradication over fighting to win.”

      Although your above comment spurned this response, my point here is more of a general comment.

      Too many Christians today like to promote the meek and mild Jesus, while forgetting the Jesus who literally made a weapon, personally kicked ass, and drove the money-changers, with violence, out of the temple. They also forget the Jesus who called people the sons of the Devil, a brood of vipers, and so on. And they also forget that Jesus told the Apostles to preach to all people, but to also wipe the dust off their feet and ultimately “separate” themselves from people who rejected the message. In essence, today’s Christians ignore the fact that Jesus used violence, was often deemed insulting, and was definitely not nice. Jesus was loving, but he was loving in the way that telling the truth is loving, not in the modern way that being nice and non-judgmental and conflict-avoidant is considered loving.

      And this is not even to mention that many Christians forget that a good number of Christian Saints, such as Joan-of-Arc, are now considered saints precisely because they defended their nation with force and were not little “nice” push-overs. After all, in Christianity, love is not niceness, it is fierce and often harsh and even sometimes punishing in its manifestation.

      Anyway, the point is that Christians can and will fight, and they are doing nothing inherently unchristian when they do so. But too many Christians have forgotten this point.

    • I appreciate your reply, Criticus, though I think some clarification is in order. I took your suggestion to be this: “Our only hope is to advance as aggressively and quickly as possible…We must develop methods for making the leftist university professors, journalists, talk show hosts, actors, artists, bloggers, activists, etc., feel every bit as alienated, dispossessed, disenfranchised, and hated in their own country as the right now feels…Until we can firmly establish a culture where they are almost universally mocked, scorned, and reviled, you and your progeny are in serious danger.”

      For reasons I provided last time, I can’t get on board with the methods you’ve proposed. However, it’s not as though our only choices are: a) use intimidation tactics and force a secession or b) be wimpishly passive and continue to get steamrolled. I think there are a lot of options that haven’t been seriously considered yet, much less tried, and I think it would help if we had a thread on just that topic.

      Finally, I did not claim that Christians must be pacifists when it comes to war, nor did I claim that the New Testament forbids physical self-defense. Apparently the early Christians were pacifists for the first few centuries, but I don’t have a considered view on the subject.

  11. One problem with getting the left to separate from us is that leftism is intrinsically parasitical. They never really want their own country because they need a mass of normal, productive, decent people who don’t live according to leftist principles in order to tax them, conscript them, run real institutions competently, etc. More abstractly, any society that actually implements leftist ideals such as diversity and equality in a consistent way–as consistent as this mass of confusion could be–would immediately destroy itself. The economic disasters of applied Marxism are just one instance of this broader thing. Imagine if the US were actually run top-to-bottom along the lines of racial socialism proposed by BLM or cranks in whiteness studies. Imagine if a real country actually applied the principle that “no one is illegal” in setting immigration policy. Imagine if we applied affirmative action nonsense when hiring brain surgeons. So what they really want, though they may not admit it even to themselves, is a situation where most people and institutions are not leftist, and the leftist elite get to exploit these non-leftist people and cultures and institutions forever. By contrast, normal people don’t need the left. If they disappeared tomorrow society would be no worse off in any way.

    • I agree with your assessment, Jacques. That’s exactly what I was getting at in my initial response to Reconquista. He is optimistic about convincing the left, however, that they don’t need us enough for us to get the legal permission to separate, as he then explains. Do you think that’s impossible too?

      • Sorry if I missed that. Maybe we could convince them. They’re insane anyway so they may not be able to recognize the objective reality that their own schemes are intrinsically parasitic. Could we maybe encourage them somehow, get them to go even further left into deeper delusion? Maybe that’s the best option. We’re not dealing with rational actors and maybe we can use that to our advantage. What do you think?

  12. So more the Michael “to hell with them” Savage route than the Rush “poke fun with good cheer” Limbaugh route?

    This is what Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas et al would counsel/do? Be mean and alienating, presume that the vast majority of some political faction are beyond reason and dialectic, etc.? I have a hard time envisioning them having that attitude.

    And I say this as someone who already does think that the Left is too chock full of loathsome losers (politically speaking, anyway) for its own good. As a big fan of Ayn Rand (inasmuch as she is rightly interpreted as a neo-Aristotelian) I have seen the vile caricature- and smear-tactics employed by far too many of them not to regard them as quite intellectually bankrupt in spite of all their hubris. (See, e.g., one Brian Leiter.) Their myopia has them being kind and considerate toward various ‘victim-groups’ and about as alienating and marginalizing toward their own versions of out-groups (conservatives and Christians mostly, and advocates of free markets) as you are suggesting that those on the Right be toward them. You propose we treat them en masse as a basket of deplorables and irredeemables. Where Socrates/Plato/Aristotle/Aquinas might see potentialities for improvement, you propose giving up on them as beyond hope or helping – that the loathsome losers cannot be converted into (politically, at least) decent winners.

    I’m not seeing much constructive good that would come of such a strategy. Meanwhile, what I propose and aspire to practice myself is stepping up my/our intellectual game to such an extent that my/our more or less neo-Aristotelian approach to difficult intellectual matters is preferable and more productive, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and to do so with a lot of good cheer and even biting sarcasm toward the newly-demonstrated-to-be-inferior ideas/approaches. That approach of course takes a lot of brains and a perhaps Herculean effort to do better and stronger. It might take the brains, courage and hard dialectical work it took for the likes of Nozick to go from left/socialist to a libertarian (after going through a thorough investigation of the various ideologies on offer). It takes being able to apply the Dennett/Rapoport Rules for effective criticism (state your opponent’s case at least as well and as sympathetically as its proponents do — before you go about ripping that case to shreds).

    I’m not sure that you, I, or anyone else has the faintest idea of the pushback (blowback?), unintended consequences, etc. that your slash-and-burn approach would bring about. How many folks do you even expect to find your proposed approach appealing in the first place? I (for one) don’t. Yes, there are those on the Left, such as Leiter, who are not intellectually honest enough to have a fair and constructive dialogue on political issues. Rather than treating all on the Left as deplorables, we can get some mileage from providing demarcations between those who clearly don’t want to learn from the other side (the Leiters) and those who do or might. By making such distinctions/contrasts we gain some amount of credibility. The fundamental distinction here is between intellectual honesty and the lack thereof, and being able to provide clear instances of infractions by those demonstrating the latter, and I don’t see how treating ‘The Left’ as an undifferentiated blob in that regard can help with that.

    The task of doing any such outreach and (hopefully) conversion is long and hard. I think the likes of Socrates and Aristotle would be up to the challenge. And I certainly don’t see your fellow conservatives or anyone else gravitating toward your causes, whatever they are, without abundant good cheer on your part. Bold and confrontational, fine. Angry – as your post comes off as being, and to the detriment of clear and careful thinking – not so much so. That’s what turns off so many people about the Left, after all. BTW, have you not seen the good-humored (and yet also stern and barbed) pushback from many quarters of the wider American culture against the culture of the Campus Crybullies and their ridiculous demands? The political cartoons? Heck, even Leiter has had enough sense to acknowledge this Crybully culture (“The New Infantilism” he calls it) for what it is. (See what I did there? *Even Leiter*… . 😉 (Of course, Leiter attributes this to the universities becoming too market-oriented by catering to student/customer whims. He’s still being loathsome, and yet what isn’t in dispute is how loathsome the Crybullies and their enablers are being.)

    Any of this sinking in?

    • “Meanwhile, what I propose and aspire to practice myself is stepping up my/our intellectual game to such an extent that my/our more or less neo-Aristotelian approach to difficult intellectual matters is preferable and more productive, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and to do so with a lot of good cheer and even biting sarcasm toward the newly-demonstrated-to-be-inferior ideas/approaches.”

      Best of luck to you, Ultimate Philosopher. Let me know how that goes.

      • Unfortunately, for the sectors of the left that really push the agenda successfully, yes. But you are right that there are leftists who are thoughtful and overall decent people and I think that engaging with them dialectically is fine and good.

  13. This article reveals the nuts and bolts of social engineering of a new America; based, I believe, on the Bible Babel story as Template. Perhaps philosophers must first identify themselves as racial/ethnic entities with their own group self interest; and be prepared to engage in a Coliseum of combat, of contesting philosophical positions founded in multifarious distinct ethnic/cultural histories transported as immigrant entities to a utopia of Multicultural Society being constructed on the body of America. New opportunities for forging philosophies of adaptation will open and require serious thought. In any case if you have not read this compelling article about the struggle to control US Immigration Law/Policy from 1881 to 1965, by Dr. Kevin MacDonald, you will benefit from doing so as it will clarify much that is murky about America today! Link is to the free PDF article on MacDonald’s website which is his name plus .com____.www.kevinmacdonald.net/immigration.pdf
    l

Comments are closed.