Read on Twitter
People are generally as "right wing," meaning taking their own side, as they are "allowed" to be. They need moral justification and physical safety. They receive neither right now from their supposed leaders, like Trump (1)
What we're seeing now is that people aren't happy with what's going on, but they see no effective way to fight back. They see, and know, that the mob can burn a police station with no consequences, but if they say "I'm Republican" on Facebook, they could lose their job (2)
You have the media openly lying , but doing in a very specific way. There's a Narrative of social justice, of overcoming the past, of some glorious future. It's been done before, but people want meaning. If given no alternative, they'll take the progressive Narrative (3)
I always think of the scene in "Malcolm X" (which lied quite a bit about the man, but whatever) that says people will choose a polluted glass if that's all they are offered. (4)
What does Trump offer? There's half handed grasping at "law and order," vague promises about American history, "Dems are the real racists." And the ppl after Trump are worse. It'll be more accountants whining about the debt. There's no vision, without which the ppl perish (5)
Classical liberalism is nearing its end. Its supposed defenders are already telling us, quite openly, that it can only be saved through censorship, repression, double standards. The Next Right, a real Right, will go beyond liberalism. Beyond "Left" and "Right" itself (6)
Just like the degenerate Ancien Régime dug its own grave in France, our "elites" are doing it here. There will be an egalitarian storm. But something better will come out of it. Our values will be Order, Identity, and Greatness, not "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." (7)
Aside from the organizational work, the intellectual task is twofold. First, what is American identity (or is there one) apart from classical liberalism? The Founders clearly saw the dangers of democracy, but to some extent, the Experiment was fated to end this way. (8)
Second, what's our political theory? Sam Francis, whom Pat Buchanan called the "Clausewitz of the Right" came the closest. He saw James Burnham as a foundation because he was a modernist, not bogged down by reactionary sentimentalism or libertarian theorizing. (9)
Instead, Francis, drawing on Burnham and the "Machiavellians," could talk about social forces and the function of ideology as the mask power wears. We could analyze politics like adults. But he died before he could complete his model, especially how it regards to race. (10)
There's also a problem at the core of it. Modernism can't explain everything. Joseph de Maistre argued, quite convincingly, that real power, order and identity is rooted in the irrational. Even the egalitarianism, cloaked in rationalism, is a religion, a new faith. (11)
There's something that unites the Traditionalism of Julius Evola and the modernism of Burnham, something essential that I can't quite express or explain yet. Reaction won't work. Conservatism Inc. sentimentality won't either. There's something else that must be developed. (12)
In whatever months/years I can work, I want to capture that essential truth, build it into a system and apply it to our current situation. I don't know if America (whatever that means at this point) can be saved, but our fate isn't bound up with the regime on the Potomac (13)
