Left-Right Parity

Should the Right use Leftist strategy?

The question as to whether or not the Left are fundamentally correct in their political strategy is one often debated on the Right. Should we adopt their strategies? It is often true that “the woke are more correct than the mainstream,” as they say. The Left tends to understand the Machiavellian rules of political power far better than most people. However, although we are only novices in terms of practical experience, the Right has at least substantially devoted itself to an autodidactic learning process, especially over the last several years. Intellectually, we understand political power far better than we did in 2016. Although we remain but journeymen, I like to think that we’ve at least learned something about politics and about ourselves.

One of the processes constantly at work on the Left is that the Left’s activists are “never satisfied” with the achievements of their leaders. It doesn’t matter how anti-white, anti-American, or Bioleninist a left-wing politician is; he will never be rewarded with a “great job” from his most hardcore supporters, but a vitriolic demand for more, more, more!

There is certainly something to this. If anything, we cannot say that the Left are complacent. But should we behave this way? My answer may surprise you, which is a definitive no.

The right practiced this behavior more than you might think. During the heyday of the “Alt-Right,” the “movement” was largely driven by the most “spergy” commentators to be found on the Internet. This is not to say that the “creators” or “leaders” of the alt-right were this way, but, being heavily dependent on superchats (one of the most damaging things ever created; I hate superchats), the “chat” more or less had their leaders by the balls, financially. If you “cucked” on this or that issue, it could really harm your bottom line; and that bottom line is supremely important for those putting everything on the line in order to engage in genuine right-wing politics.

I have great respect for the precursors in the alt-right who broke the ground and took the slings and arrows so that the rest of us could move forward: Colin Robinson, Jason Köhne, Mark Collett, to name a few. With the maturation of “dissident” right-wing politics, we’re no longer imprisoned by our own radicals. The comments section may demand that you “name them,” that you denounce America and all its works, and declare your allegiance to the Führer, but we no longer have to engage with this sort of nonsense.

With the miraculous ability to reach wider, more sensible audiences despite all the censorship, avenues for monetization from less radical elements have opened up. We love the radical right — we really do — but look, we just can’t go around throwing up romans left and right and get anything done. The answer to the original question which I have posed is less my opinion on the matter than it is simply an observation of what has actually happened as this process has developed.

The “hotter” we get, the crazier they want us to become. Sorry, but hotness may make crazy more enticing, but we’re not going there.

The Left does actually depend on a state of permanent revolution, which is not an automatic process, but one that requires a ceaseless expenditure of energy to keep going; it’s not a perpetual motion machine. Unlike this ceaseless discharge of spewing vitriol, we work on carefully applied leverage, like building an archway. We don’t do “judo” moves, and we aren’t guerillas. We are open, calm, and straightforward about our intentions, proceeding carefully.

So no, there is no Left-Right parity in behavioral terms. As a general rule, we shouldn’t try to adopt their methods artificially, because we’ve already demonstrated that this doesn’t work for us. Which is not surprising; after all, why would the faction of truth work the same as the empire of lies?