The Right needs to get its act together
The fights we face are existential, and we can't afford tepidity and handwringing over those who can't—or won't—see the stakes clearly enough to act accordingly.
At present, the most salient, consequential divide on the Right is between those who can see that the ruling class hates them enough to inflict escalating pain and suffering upon them in direct proportion to the power it seizes, and those who, like David French, refuse to see it, try to explain it away, or insist that people like me who point it out are maliciously overreacting.
For the Frenches of the world, those who see this reality and try to resist it in a serious way are stoking “phony trumped-up culture wars” and “fake outrage”—to use the words of former President Obama, speaking in support of Virginia’s gubernatorial loser Terry “Your Kids Are Actually My Kids, Not Your Kids” McAuliffe.
I dare him to tell the high school freshman girl who was raped in a women’s restroom by a boy in a skirt that she’s part of some shady, disingenuous right-wing plot. That’s nothing but dangerous, demagogic nonsense—far worse than anything President Trump ever said, if we’re being frank—but par for the course for Obama, sadly.
But because of the ideological vice grip that the ruling class has the rest of the country in, if we want to be able to work a job to afford food for our families, we have to pretend that the convicted rapist is really a virtuous, brave girl. (#SlayKween, or something.)
Forcing people to mouth such obvious lies, pushing linguistic rape, is corrosive to the soul of the nation; if it’s allowed to continue, it will be our undoing.
Those who can’t—or won’t—face up to the reality of a hostile ruling class, one that’s bent on the destruction of the traditional American way of life and in open rebellion against truth itself, are worse than useless. They’re positively dangerous, and they have no place on the “new Right,” which must be united and committed to securing the “safety and happiness” of the American people if it’s going to re-found the nation for the modern era.
It’s paramount that we decisively oust all of the “Vichycons” from their current perches of influence and positions of prestige; they cannot be permitted to confuse and demoralize (at best) or poison to death (at worst) this nascent counterrevolution, the first stirrings of which were in Virginia this week. We won’t have many more opportunities to wrest the country out of the grip of its woke totalitarian masters and return it to the “We the People.”
Sky-high crime, CRT, neo-racism (i.e., “antiracism”), unlimited mass immigration, endless war, a censorious Big Tech, transgender delusions, abortion, election funny business, and the “biomedical security state”—all of these (and other issues I’m sure I’ve forgotten to list) truly are issues of existential import. To fail on any one of them would be to suffer a massive blow; to fail on most or all of them will bring our civilization—what’s left of it, anyway—to its knees. Permanently.
More could be said, of course, but I’ll close with this: Anyone who does not understand the stakes of the current moment—what to do, given where and who we are, and what we face—or, worse, actively works against the patriots trying to right the ship, can truly be said to be an enemy of the common good, a proverbial anchor dragging America down into the abyss of oblivion.
And what do you do with anchors when they’re sinking your ship?
You cut them loose.
Hmm. Eloquently put! I find myself agreeing AND disagreeing. I agree about the seriousness of the obstacles we face, and of the determination of our enemies to destroy our culture and our liberties completely. Ergo, unapologetic and passionate "resistance" is called for. On the other hand, you don't win political battles (like the battle against the reconciliation bill) without building bridges. We'd be nowhere right now without Manchin and Sinema, not to mention Romney, Murkowski, Collins... I'm inclined to think a winning strategy is an "all-of-the-above" approach that delivers a full-throated conservative message, while at the same time working (tactically) with "moderates" when it serves a purpose.