At public political events, we have the designated time devoted to who can lie about and pander to blacks the best. It isn’t even for blacks. It is for the whites of either side to feel superior (left wing) or block racism smears (right wing). It is pathetic. It is also used because no one has a good narrative for whites.
The left wing narrative is one constantly focused on the periphery members. Ask a white liberal what they do politically for their lives, their people, etc., and you will cause a pause. They define themselves by the actions they do for other groups’ benefit, and the stances they take with regards to other groups. There is no personal interest. At its core, this explains their lack of children. The religious dopamine hit only lasts as long as this year’s shibboleths hold. Uplift or education of others is now white savior behavior and verboten.
The right doesn’t have one either. Nationalism is still suppressed by their current thought leaders who want to get back to strip mall-strip mining the nation. The appeals to parchment are wearing thin and as the left moves closer to open totalitarianism, they will die. As economic opportunities for the good life get automated away, this hustle & make money mentality will break.
Both sides need to figure it out because if the left is to make whites merely one piece of their coalition they dominate, they need a story for them. There has to be a way to incorporate them even if it is into a terrible Brazilian set up. The woke message may control levers (temporarily), but it won’t sell to 200 million whites. Reality can be denied for a while but always asserts itself. The right needs a narrative because right now their disservice to their base allows Q Anon to be a self-sustaining phenomenon. Trump or no Trump, an anti-corruption movement can survive in this wretched regime no matter how much fantasy is involved.
For decades, the GOP was mocked for their desire to go back to the ‘50s. At this moment, the Democrats wishing to turn the clock back to the ‘90s have replaced them. They are the new delusional class. Boomers and Xers wanting that with their “I’m a middle of the road kinda guy” are as out of touch as the parents they mocked a generation ago. There is no going back, only through.
Both sides need to figure it out because burning down cities can create a few reactions. One is Stockholm Syndrome seal clapping. Another is weev posting. Any regime that successfully navigates the future must figure out a different way to address this tension, these circumstances and this specific crowd. At this time, both sides are failing.
On to the links…
Greenwald on Censorship – The NY Post story is a turning point. I do not foresee a reversal of course unless drastic anti-Big Tech measures are taken. No one seems to have the will to do so.
Sully on Wokeness – Andrew Sullivan wants to fight for liberalism. That begat wokeness Sully. Sorry. No turning back the clock.
Secession Becomes Thinkable – Secession talk spreads but a friend pointed out a problem. What if the Feds don’t send in troops but just cut off a state from SWIFT? Need coordination for states for anything like that to work.
The Rich Fund The Left – Research showing how outgunned the right is.
China Thinks We’re Losing – All China has to do is tread water and they win.
The NY Times Seed Planting – This is a very interesting look into how the Times planted seeds for Biden’s excuses last year.
Caldwell on Plymouth 400 – Best read of the week.
Fourth Turning Election – If you are a Strauss & Howe fan, this is worth a read. The Fourth Turning crisis is upon us. America always exits a crisis looking different than it did entering it.
One Comment Add yours
Caldwell’s piece was great. And of course this line probably sticks out tremendously to everyone on the dissident right:
> The George Washington university historian David J. Silverman, disinclined to view the Pilgrim colony as an improvement on what preceded it, asks in This Land Is Their Land (2019): “Why should a school-age child with the last name of, say, Silverman, identify more with the Pilgrims than the Indians?”
The point about the Indians having diversity and the colonists having unity was powerful. It’s a good take.