The day after
Following up on a comment I made this week saying, in part
This is not a problem of elections. This is not even a problem of ideology or its messaging. This is a problem of results on the ground, which come from the spirit of man moving in herds just like it always has. This is ultimately a problem of choice, as in where shall you move once it becomes too bad to endure.
What I didn’t know was that as early the day after the election citizens of the States of Louisiana, Missouri, and possibly Texas moved for independence.
Interesting. Evidently these bitterclinging Walmart shopping rednecks are done debating. I’m surprised they could find the Internet, much less use it.
Yet in seriousness succession efforts will be soundly ridiculed, including (and perhaps especially) from the right, because they will be judged by their perceived likelihood of success in moving against the aging nationalism of a dying but once great and proud nation of traditional freedom and liberty, instead of being promoted by an originalist, structural ethic and a thoroughly contemporary need. In this the right will return to its failed path and rhetoric, every two years or every four years publicly introspecting about how it lost its messaging, how to attract interest groups, and how to cajole itself to finally widen its appeal and regain its place at the collective table.
All this it aims to do, naturally, by first proving that it too is part of that collective.
While bitterclinging Walmart shopping rednecks just quietly preempted the shit out of it.
In fact, the right lost and will continue to lose because it did not create the intellectual equivalent of a free state: It stopped offering choice when the only choice for a land overrun by regressive illiberalism relabeled Progressive Liberalism is to find the exits.
And in order to find exits they have to exist.
There have to be new shores.
We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.
The younger generation doesn’t want equality and regimentation, but opportunity to shape their world while showing compassion to those in real need.
That was the maligned and cartooned Margret Thatcher, decades ago pointing to not only various TEA, Liberty, and constitutional movements, but verifying for us that if our messaging does in fact succeed somewhere it must succeed to the young. (This should include convincing Occupy that their relatively minor misdeeds are forgiven if they reform them into lawful and intelligent mindset and policies aimed at defeating Leviathan, a principle the establishment right has apparently forgotten while anarcho capitalists have not.
No? Okay, then I’ll say that I find that “messaging” a far sight more likely to work than convincing American neo-communists that their Dear Leader is a fraud on their ostensible purpose.)
Like those Missourians, those Louisianians, and those Texans, I too decline arguments to reform the existing, thoroughly progressive system — it has charted its course and made its bed and to do so it has had no interest in truth or liberty, save to invoke original principles wrongly for false effect and to invert their clear purpose in order to continue that system’s falsehoods and oppressions and thefts. And to roll over you and I every last chance it gets.
Do you see any break in that trajectory whatsoever?
Yet we know that left is obsolete! (By its bloody record the greater left has been obsolete for a hundred years and more.)
This tells us that left simply has no coherent message, which naturally explains the eternal absence of its American manifesto but the tenacity of its principles, which are envy, covetousness, theft, and the lies and empty sloganeering that keep them propped up until their current host dies. If it has no form but its substance is killing a nation, do we really think the problem is messaging?
Or is the recourse clear, confident, proven choice; a bedrock made of original, structural principle and nothing more?
The message of liberty and choice must issue from a consistent, unimpeachable, and bulwarked entity and it must not adopt even a syllable of the left’s rhetoric. It must be thoroughly and convincingly about choice — an intellectual Free State — even if that choice needs to stand for twenty or thirty or forty years before it’s selected by the majority; if a majority ever select it, bearing in mind the minority that created the American experiment.
Consider that through our last hundred years, such a choice hasn’t stood at all. I ask you, how will you and they select change when the state (and State) of that change does not exist?
Consider too that when the establishment right twice cannot front a sound candidate or configure their election, and when the establishment right cannot parse the campaigns in that election on relative strengths and declines to qualify them by structural principle, there are only two conclusions: Either it is that right that has failed, or it is the nation that right, by some profoundly odd, concealed means, foolishly seeks to somehow rescue and redeem that has failed it.
The right either stands on the conviction of valid principles or it does not stand on the conviction of its principles, admitting that those principles do not hold, in this nation, certain truths to be self evident after all.