The American Right Grows Up
Auron MacIntyre, The Total State: How Liberal Democracies Become Tyrannies, Regnery, 2024, 208 pp. The American Right talks about power, realism, and human nature. It acts politically like a naïve child. The American Left talks about equality, empathy, and...
Some excellent points brought up in the article but
is a sentiment im really sick of reading from these try-hard neofascist types. The examples brought up is stuff like COVID lockdowns, but the US had the least restrictive lockdowns in the entire world. The US does not have the problem of rape gangs that other countries have, because of guns. The US has yet to arrest people for hate speech like other countries have. The constitution has been the number one thing holding the left at bay in this country, and this attitude that just because we're experiencing some turbulence, the whole system needs to be thrown away, smells to me of an agenda, like telling someone to drop their shields just because they took a few hits but are overall still very protected.
Ultimately, the power of the left and the establishment comes from one thing, lies. The more normies wake up, the harder it will be for them to push their agenda. And you know what weapons we use in their campaign of lies? Free Speech, and The Right to Bear Arms.
I'd argue the constitutional republic as designed hasn't existed for at least 100 years, likely longer. It was supposed to be a state-dominant government. So if California wanted to fly the fag flag and Texas wanted to ban it, sure, fine. It keeps changing so some states can use the federal government to force others to comply.
Even after all the civil war stuff, the amendments passed in the early 20th century, they are terrible.
Don't get me wrong, I still think the US did way better in everything you mention because of the Constitution. I just argue to anyone going on about the failed "constitutional republic" is we barely have much of it left.
I suppose then that begs the question: Did those amendments pass because of an intrinsic weakness in the constitutional republic model that other models of government would be more resilient to?
I've thought about that, but never read into it. There is some sort of weakness for sure. Having not lived through an amendment really (I suppose the 27th), it's hard for me to say, just because I don't know how the landscape and the feelings of the actual people were when they were ratified. The 26th makes some sense to me, with that being during the whole Vietnam draft, albeit it didn't really work to stop America being the world empire anyway.
I mean if I were to be given perfection, I'll take a benevolent dictator. But good luck making that happen and actually work. Second to that, I still think the US is better off than moth.
I agree with you, but with the benefit of hindsight I bet there are a few more things the founding fathers would have spelled out in inarguable black and white.
I also think that no system of government is suitable for all periods of history. Right now I think America may well benefit from a Caesar brushing aside the fat and happy elite.
The founding fathers explicitly said when the government shows it's nature, burn it down and rebuild stronger, using the constitution. There are many kinds of failsafes people have come up with to prevent the exact corruption we see now, that can only be implemented when you restart from the base again. We are in the "leadup to war" period.
Use the 2nd amendment the way it was intended to water the tree of liberty.
The problem with that is that we would need someone with the benevolence and care that Caesar had for Rome combined with his will and tactical prowess to do what needed to be done. There is an abundance of people with either of those, but rarely both.
What we need is essentially a hybrid between Javier Milei, Ron Paul, and Napoleon. We pretty much need God Emperor Atreides at this point. Trump, for all the good he has done, is nowhere near the caliber of man required to save this country from its current course.
I agree on Trump, but you're probably overselling the qualities needed to solve the current woes for America.
I is true that the person who emerges to cut the Gordian Knot will be an exceptional person, the reality is that he will emerge from a cadre of exceptional people and effectively harness that collective will to be free of the old order.
What's needed effectively is a better coalition (which, presumably, is forming now) and a leader with popular appeal that isn't an 80 year old man. The tactical stuff takes place in a war room and the best minds of humanity are yearning to break away from this bullshit.
If I recall correctly, part of this goes back to the Federalists. I'm almost positive it's one of the main reasons Alexander Hamilton has been thrust forward with that godforsaken musical in Broadway.
Jefferson on the other hand was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party, who wanted to return back to the free state model. "liberalism, republicanism, individual liberty, equal rights, decentralization, free markets, free trade, agrarianism, and sympathy with the French Revolution"
To be honest, that doesn’t exactly sound good either.
I'll cut him some slack on that, given the timeframe. Lack of hindsight and some limitations on available information (due to distances, travel time, etc).
Plus, regardless of the later ramifications of the French Revolution the French nobility at the time were notoriously fucked up and gave absolutely zero shit about the people. Absolute degenerates that share a lot in common with today's modern elite.
Irrelevant.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
The implementation of universal suffrage was the death knell, and FDR's stacking of the supreme court with goons that were all aboard the "expand federal powers" agenda was the final blow. But what really started it was Lincoln deciding states weren't allowed to leave.
Yeah the wehraboo faggots constantly trying to subvert the right are not, and have never been patriotic americans or right wing. They're just another flavor of leftist grubbling for power to give to their sociopaths, and promoted by the feds as a psyop. Every last one deserves the woodchipper.
The founding fathers knew every government is imperfect. The US was built knowing it would fail, and designed to allow for revolution. The US government is meant to be an iterative design - when it inevitably turns to tyranny, tear it down and put in more safeguards for the next version. They talked about this concept in their writings. Our system is not perfect, but it is still the best system humanity has seen. It failing as all things do is no excuse to reject the principles it was built on and pivot hard left like the useless faggots want.
You know why they're pushed so hard? All leftism serves globalist goals. The real sociopaths at the top do not actually care which dogma they have to pretend to serve, only that power is concentrated. Centralized power is what they want, because they will always subvert it.
You nailed it. People crying about the constitution not being totally fail safe are children. Everything eventually falls to entropy, and requires constant upkeep to continue working. Government is no different. Its still very easy to see how the constitution has kept the ideas of liberty alive in peoples minds, so that we arent nearly as overrun as the rest of the developed world.
That's straight up false. Ask the people who are sitting in jail for Jan. 6 where their free speech went.
When was the last time the right won anything? What was the last right wing bill that was signed into law?
or douglas mackey
Roe v. Wade being overturned. Regardless of your stance on abortion, a "right" being created out of thin air was always an affront to constitutional law and it was de-federalized and returned to the states.
That's a reasonable answer. Though it is kinda telling that the one spot they win on is the a spot that will lead to their destruction by demographic replacement.
I dont agree with what happened to the J6 people, but they were not arrested for hate speech, they were arrested for trespassing and such. The vast majority of j6 people who didnt go inside have not been arrested.
"MuH CoNsTiTuTiOn"
The Constitution is your biggest weakness because everytime something permanently shifts against you, "at least we still have the constitution" is what placates you.
The constitution is a paper document, and eventually some protesters are going to destroy it.
Who the fuck is placated, moron? The constitution is our biggest legal defense, without it we'd be just as bad as Canada and Europe, if not worse.
The "paper document" is irrelevant. The ideas it represents are eternal.
Correct, the crypto-leftists trying to subvert the right all serve the same masters as the regular goons. Centralization of power is what they want, they don't care which dogma they have to pretend to care about to gain control. Check my other posts ITT
Is Auron MacIntyre a crypto-leftist?
He's a conservative trying to go back to its bootlicking roots. The man deep down yearns for a king to rule him.
No.
I like Auron MacIntyre. He's definitely in the first camp in the below scenarios.
To summarise as best I can there are two "sides" to the America question, and the west in general.
Acceleration and rebuild post collapse OR take over via cheating or illiberal means.
Take the higher moral ground and rely on institutions to work by enforcing rules as they are written.
Unfortunately both of these are losing strategies because in the first instance any hostility towards the state, either through just cheating to win locally, or anything up to full blown revolution is not going to work. The idea that American's would win a civil war because there's hundreds of millions of firearms owned by beefy Men with beards and tacticool gear is a fantasy best left to the pages of the Turner Diaries.
The second instance is in my opinion, even sillier. If you're playing a game of soccer and in the first half the other team plays with 20 players and relentlessly cheats. Committing to having better fundamentals in the halftime huddle and planning to win because you're going to play harder is laughable when the other team is spending that time building a brick wall over their goal.
I'd be happy to go into more detail to disabuse people of their fantasies, if required. I suspect the first one will be more provocative.
I do think there is a way out of it and forward, but it requires sticking to the rules and playing a different game instead. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible as it requires people to act out of accordance with their natures.
I’d like to hear your ideal way through, always good to have more options.
Does it involve basically renouncing material society and founding a parallel, self-sustaining one with your locals? That’s the one option I’ve found so far which a)would keep one relatively free b)wouldn’t require blood to fill the streets
Edit: and ideally it would be somewhat neo-primitivist, as in, we make use of what good knowledge has been produced since the industrial revolution/“enlightenment” but almost entirely as augmentations to traditional ways of life. I’m thinking things like sanitation, building techniques, basic chemistry principles, and so on, perhaps even digital technology, to a limited extent (it would need to be replaceable and fixable on a small scale which isn’t really feasible with regards to most modern consumer tech)
Essentially yes. But not all organs of society can be rebuilt in parallel. Some have to be taken over with our own long march.
And marxism and globalism have to be clearly identified as an enemy ideology, and have discipline around using it. "No that's marxist" needs to be used over and over again untill it shuts down a discussion like calling something racist is. There's no point rebuilding a house in the same spot that's been collapsed by termites. Structures of society are the same way. If some retard brings up DEI in a boardroom and suggests it. It can be shut down by simply calling it marxist and ending the discussion.
marxism and globalism need that stigma attached to it. Sadly that would require a level of message and discipline in optics that "the right" has no chance of attaining.
But primarily conservatism has to be abandoned as it doesn't offer a competing moral vision. I like the idea of rejecting the label of "the right" and taking on the mantle of balanced morals, using moral foundation theory as the basis (Johnathon Haidt wrote a book about it) because it defines us as the moral, balanced centre, and our enemies as on the fringe morally. It's a trap that they can't help fall into. It also allows for going on the offence in the culture wars, conservatism is a losing strategy but you don't win wars by being on defense all the time. The enemy only has to win once.
Glad to see this article provoking such quality discussion
Do you see capitalism (note, not bartering or exchanging stores of value, but the modern debt based system) as part of the system of control foisted upon us? Often I see “Capitalism” (i.e. usury) propped up as an “answer” to “Communism, but I’ve become more and more convinced that like “left wing” and “right wing” are both attached to the same diseased bird, I see much overlap with that and the “capitalism/communism” debate
No I don't see it as a problem. (Note I don't use the word capitalism as it's a marxist framing technique of identifying their target, what you are describing is government backed free enterprise. No-one sat down and said "lets create a system and call it capitalism. It's just an example of the superior linguistic discipline the left has)
There are many individual issues with financial problems but they are individual not as a result of some mythical "system" to say that is to buy into the marxist frame.
I think most of those individual issues could be solved or avoided by greater economic literacy in individuals. Seriously Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell is required reading.
To be fair, when I called it “the modern system of debt-based capitalism” and “capitalism(usury)” I was trying to differentiate what I was referring to (the reality of the situation) from any theoretical renditions of the meaning of “capitalism” (either explicitly Marxist or not).
Frankly I do believe some people sat down and said “let’s create a financial system which operates as an inescapable black whole from which lendees will never escape, while the lender’s event horizon grows ever wider. There was the rothschild banking cartel from the 16th century onwards, from which time old world economics became ever more centered not on labor or production but debt. Part of the reason for America’s rampant success early on was the casting off of this system, though it eventually returned and metastasized in 1913 with the creation of the fed and shortly after that with the abolition of the gold standard with Breton Woods
I know Sowell is quite smart, but I can’t think of much I’ve heard him say on the topic of debt slavery, inherent with fiat currency
Can you elaborate by what you mean by debt slavery?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sIE84LWvqU8