The outer right has no coalition, even if it appears all of its component organizations are coordinating.
Part of the reason for this is egoism, but part is also a negotiating gambit among the people who resist forming alliances.
Generally, people writing and speaking on these issues have a special interest. They want to make sure that their special interest will not be downgraded if they collaborate with other people who either don’t share that interest, or don’t have that interest as their foremost concern.
To form a useful coalition, each of its members has to be willing to put aside some of their pet issues for some time, at least in the particular context of presenting a united front on a single issue, even if it’s temporary.
Part of the reason why Europe and its descendants have been so successful relative to other parts of the world is the unusual cultural capacity of Europeans to devolve and delegate authority to lower levels, to set strategic goals at a high level and then to use a high-trust culture to enable people closer to the ground to act on their own initiative.
In return, broadly spread property rights enable greater shares in the profits, as risk is similarly shared throughout the population.
Property rights are always present, even in the most despotic societies, although the sphere of protection that they represent is more restricted. Even in despotism, property rights are enforced within the limits of the imperial palace. When property rights are spread throughout society, recognized as social norms, and enforced predictably, the society can be more active and responsive to changing conditions. Decision making loops can become tighter and faster, rather than being regulated by a single decision loop in the imperial capitol.
Setting up a structure that is capable of making faster, better-informed decisions than the competition is an effective way to crush a competitor, no matter how small the starting point is. If you can make 1,000 effective decisions in the same time that it takes the competitor to make 1, then the defeat of the competitor is almost inevitable.
A culture based on decentralized leadership will defeat a consensus-based culture routinely, because reaching consensus takes exponentially greater amounts of time depending on the scale of the organization that must be brought to consensus.
For the outer right to become an effective force in politics, people need to be able to bargain without giving up the essence of what they want to preserve. Without the need to appeal to an entire society of hundreds of millions, it’s possible to form more effective groups that don’t require the surrender of every important point in the pursuit of winning an election.
It’s much easier to build a smaller culture of millions from the defectors of the mass-culture than it is to try to go after an entire mass-culture at once which has no interest in defection.
The aim shouldn’t be to form a counter-culture, but to create a viable alternative culture with all the trappings of a self-sustaining culture. Once that is on solid footing, then the other components fall into place. Counter-culture defines itself as the opposite of the culture that it opposes, ceding the opposition the frame of discussion immediately. A competing culture defines itself, with its opposition to the neighboring culture being a secondary matter.
Excellent points. In other words, no enemies to the right, no friends to the left. I see this happening on the right, and it’s encouraging. Hard core Christian traditionalists, techno-atheists, HBD geneticists, monarchists, ethno-nationalists, etc. are all realizing that they are expressing the same ideas, just in different subject areas. I find it encouraging that people who self-identify in those various ways seem to have very little enmity between them, when I would have expected factionalism and petty bickering. Happily, I see very little infighting and much agreement and concentration of purpose.
Well, I’m glad that you’re not seeing any infighting. I encourage everyone to keep their infighting and back-biting as private as possible.
Lacking any real power, you’d think the dissident right would build coalitions quite easily. But a lack of willingness to compromise, or be seen to compromise is what got them (us) here in the first place. This is a knotty problem. Sounds like a job for the Outlaw Biker Gangs Model of Coalition Management.
One problem is that successful mass movements often depend on the self-abnegation of their followers, and the transference of the basis of self-worth from the individual to the Party. For this reason they tend to attract frustrated and unsuccessful people with a wish to level the whole society in order to achieve the equality of status they cannot attain by lifting themselves up. The Right, however, with its concern for order and hierarchy, attracts exactly the opposite sort of people — and so it is harder to achieve the sort of fusion and cohesion required for overwhelming opposition.
You can overwhelm the other guys with numbers, or you can overwhelm them by being vastly superior for the numbers.
True. Or perhaps you can just create a loose but resilient community that is in a position to survive a general collapse, and to rebuild afterwards. Small mammals at the K/T boundary, so to speak.
That’s the general idea. But you have to put on a show of resistance before it all goes down to be prepared for what comes afterwards.
I quite like the fractured nature of the right. One, it allows total intellectual honesty. Two, it makes it very difficult to shut us down, since there is no real center or brain of the operation. And three, it’s better we stay purely intellectual. Our job is to lay the groundwork to justify the rule of the competent over the rule of the many.
Personally, I think “compromise” is what got us in this dreaded modernist mess in the first place.
Being decentralized is what helps us evolve faster, more effectively.
>Personally, I think “compromise” is what got us in this dreaded modernist mess in the first place.
This is probably why it is hard to get people to compromise a little — because they are too used to having to compromise everything that matters to them in order to survive.
To deal with the only game in town, the Stupid Party, you had to compromise everything. So, yeah, we end up hoping for the Collapse / Day of the Rope. But, Collapse is in the air, much more so than 10 years ago.
Collapse is historically common, and positioning yourself to gain from disorder is also historically common. I certainly don’t take it as far as someone like everyone’s favorite Arch-Druid does. I’m not giving up on the West.
I happen to think that we’re 50-100 years into collapse. We’re well along, and our day is coming. Keep up the good work, everyone.
I, too, do not give up on the West. Look how much is left even today, after 50-100 years of slide (if one agrees on my timing). We’re not just going to wake up one day surrounded by smoking ruins. There will be continuity, and much left to work with.