The Right Needs Social Cohesion

For those keeping abreast of the news, we have seen the ongoing saga of the Canadian truckers take some interesting turns. The Canadian government has stepped up its repressive measures by arresting protestors, freezing the bank accounts of their supporters, and even threatening to kill their pets and take away their kids. Yet - this hasn’t really had the desired effect. Instead of scaring people, it seems to be galvanising many in support of the truckers. Supporters are forming human chains to protect truckers from arrest. People still continue to donate to their GiveSendGo despite dire threats of the theft of their accounts by banks and the government. Many normies who didn’t originally support the truckers are now beginning to realise that the Turdeau government’s “cure” is worse than the “disease” that the Emergency Powers Act was supposedly invoked to deal with.

At least part - and I’d suspect a large part - of the reason why the Canadian truckers have and continue to generate so much support is because they serve as a much needed rallying point for the Right. For weeks this movement has been acting as a nucleation point for the crystallisation of opposition to the globalist Left and its anti-human agenda. But as is usually the case with normie conservatives, they’re mistakenly believing something to be a political movement which is actually a deeper and broader social movement, which should be consciously approached in that way. In other words, support for the truckers, opposition to globalist leftism and the “you will own nothing and you’ll be happy” ethos of the World Economic Forum crowd, and all the rest should not be viewed as merely belonging to a political party (who, the Republicans? LOL), but as existing due to an ever-widening social rift that exists in American and other Western societies.

A trend which has afflicted American society for decades and which has been consistently criticised by the dissident Right is that of social atomisation. This term describes the destruction of social cohesion and its replacement by effective social isolation, especially as it relates to any social organisational levels between the individual and the state. And as uncomfortable as it may be for many normie conservatives to accept, so-called “classical” liberalism and libertarianism have played a major role in memeing Americans into accepting this state of affairs.

Keep in mind that while there may be larger social trends involved in the destruction of traditional local communities and their replacement with masses of fungible economic units who move wherever the megacorporation tells them to, these trends are not accidental. Instead, they resulted from a good deal of social engineering that was applied over several decades. As such, the social atomisation we see in the USA and the rest of the West is largely purposeful. And what is the purpose to it? To erode any centres of power or legitimacy that would stand between the state and the individual - the family, the church, the local community, state and local governments, etc. Each of these institutions has come under sustained attack.

The Powers That Be view this social atomisation as a good and necessary thing. If there is no support system standing between the individual and the transnational elite, then their dreams of making you live in the pod and eat the bugs while you consoooooome stuff you don’t really need can be made a reality.

Just as important (from their perspective) is the role that social atomisation plays in preventing mass organisation. As we’ve seen from the example of the Canadian truckers, mass organisation is (rightly) viewed as a major obstacle and threat to TPTB. The Right has long had a problem with really organising for collective action - and a lot of it has come from the fact that too many people on the broad Right mistakenly think that “collective” action is bad (durr durr what’re you, a communist??).

Yet, in the past few years, this has started to change. Normie conservatives have tried the standard route of protesting by waving signs and shouting slogans through bullhorns, which has largely failed because they don’t understand that that type of activism is not actually about effecting real change but instead belongs to the Left as performative displays of power that left-wing activists already possess via Left-compromised institutions. The Powers That Be aren’t going to let you and me imitate that. But this has, in some ways, led to the Right starting to step up their game with some direct action - such as the Canadian trucker convoy. Instead of just waving signs, they actually started to hit the Left where it hurts - in its control of the movement of global capital. And they showed up in large enough numbers that they couldn’t just be rolled up in a few hours. Instead the Canadian government alternated between vacillation and repression before finally committing itself to a course of action that is in the process of destroying what little remaining legitimacy it had in the heartlands and hearts of the actual Canadian people.

Now, we should probably reconcile ourselves to the fact that eventually the truckers will be rounded up and probably receive Canada’s version of the J6 treatment. But that’s not going to stop larger and larger repetitions from happening in the near to medium-term future. The reason for this is found in something I wrote about a little bit ago and involves some demographic-structural concepts relating to ongoing ethnogenesis taking place in both the USA and Canada.

In that article, I noted that the White population of the United States (focusing on it as it is the dominant one in terms of population, as well as simply being the heritage population of the country) has been undergoing a process of ethnogenesis. Essentially, two broad cultural groups are forming and separating from each other in an increasingly antagonistic fashion. Now it’s important to understand that “ethnogenesis” is mostly built around culture and generally involves neither genetic nor propositional, “paper citizenship” components. And like it or not, you can only maintain a cohesive culture with those with whom you share substantial cultural assumptions and similarities. This is the way human society has worked for 6,000 years and it’s not going to change just because you hand a piece of paper to some foreigner fresh off the boat. But the problem as presently found is that this also includes all of those people on the Left with whom we currently share a chunk of geography.

The simple fact is that people on the Left, generally speaking, are no longer our people, they are no longer real Americans in the sense of having much real cultural continuity from America as it existed throughout most of our history. Indeed, most of the things that the transnational, urbanised, globalistic Left makes fun of our side for - being working class chuds, hanging onto our guns, going to church, etc. - demonstrate this. Those things are Americana, and the people who hate those things are no longer connected to that Americana.

This is what has envenomed American politics so badly in recent decades (since politics is a continuation of social systems). Whenever you have two disparate cultures brought into competition and close proximity to each other, you create what is called a metaethnic faultline. This is a zone of conflict that exists as the two cultural groups struggle for resources: in the old days it would have been land and mineral wealth, today it is access to power and prestige emanating from Washington, DC and the wealth produced by America’s increasingly fake paper economy. Currently, these resources are mostly in the hands of the Left-leaning “spreadsheet class” which continues to try to find ways to appropriate the remaining Heritage American class’s wealth into its own hands.

But one of the key factors about metaethnic faultlines is that they act to generate asabiyya, social cohesion, on both sides of the line. This, in turn, leads to increasing consolidation of group units such as clans into tribes, tribes into smallish polities, smallish polities into empires. Now, the Left is already de facto united because it is essentially already the government and its clients. It is on the Right that this process has started to take place and needs to continue to do so. As this continues to happen, there will be more and larger protests than that of the truckers, which will probably be met by commensurately more stringent repression by governments, which then leads to more opposition, which leads…

There are a lot of normie conservatives out there who probably think this is just horrible. These folks still think the old Marquis of Queensbury rules apply, where we can have a jolly good whatfor with them and then sit down as friends at the end of the day. But that’s not the case at all. If you don’t already know this by now, then you need to learn it right quick - people on the Left are not your friends. They hate you, they want to take your kids away from you, they want to impoverish and destroy you. If you didn’t realise this before, then hopefully you can now that the Canadian response to the truckers has torn the mask off. If you oppose the Left’s social and economic agenda, then there is absolutely nothing that even your rank-and-file lefties - neighbours, family members, co-workers, whatever - will not support being done to you to force you into compliance or to destroy you if you won’t.

This ought to make people on the broad Right realise that they’d better band together if they want to survive with their lives and liberties intact. The Right needs to accept that it had better organise for action and begin to put aside stupid personal differences and start working together. People on the Right should not be concerned about trying to work with or get people on the Left to like them, or at least not vilify them. Those people are always going to call you a racist or whatever, because magic signaling words are an important part of their repertoire for identifying and polarising ideological enemies. They’re not going to give up that tool just because you want them to, no matter how many black friends you have or how non-racist you proclaim yourself to be.

What should the Right be doing then? Instead of resisting it on useless “civility” and “civic nationalism” grounds, we should be using the natural tendency towards social cohesion that our metaethnic faultline is creating. But that means we need to be exploring and implementing effective action against the Left as a group and against its individual members. We should be doing everything we can to make the wordcels and leftist “email class” hurt - not because it’s satisfying or makes us feel better, but for the practical purpose of bringing together the various elements of the Right into unity against a common enemy that hates us. Don’t shop at their stores or otherwise trade with them. If you’re a tradesman, refuse to do work for them. Ostracise them socially. If you’re in a position to at work, don’t promote them or otherwise advance them. Make them understand that what they’ve been doing and supporting entails real-world consequences that chirruping about on Twitter won’t make go away.

Oh, and what if you’re a libertarian who still believe in the non-aggression principle? Understand that it has already been violated numerous times by those on the Left and that there is no standing for saying that anyone on our side should still be held by it.

Thus, we should be doing everything we can to disengage from and delegitimise leftist-controlled institutions (which are nearly all of them). Additionally, though, we need to be building our own institutions and resisting official efforts to interrupt or hinder that process, while using greater cohesion to put real and effective pressure on elected officials at the local and state levels. They want to debank us? Create your own community banks. Get your kids out of the publik skoolz that only try to turn them against you. Build homeschool coops or augment the ones that may already exist in your area. Make the Left have to deal with a thousand different brush fires of “subversive” activity and overwhelm them with numbers (which we have and they do not, by the way).

In short, I’m calling for the Right to get serious about real community building. Stop being a consoooomer sitting in front of your TV consuming junk from megacorps that despise you. Resist the social atomisation that modern society pushes onto you. Learn that there are more important values than the merely economic. Regaining this social cohesion among our ethnie, our Heritage American people, is not just important for beating the Left in the short term. It’s also important for the longer-term work moving forward of rebuilding a post-collapse society after our present system eventually falls apart. Be willing to be the one who plants the tree under whose shade you may never sit. Resisting social atomisation isn’t just about getting to know your neighbours and working together against your civilisational enemies, it also has the broader temporal aspect of building a decent society for future generations.

One thing along these lines is, why should the Left co-opt everything? It used to be that STEM classes and STEM-related jobs were relatively safe but now they are increasingly “woke.” Calling the Leftists the “e-mail class” like the author suggests will do nothing - that is like admitting that people who hold to the old ideas of Marxism (however they repackage them) are somehow more suitable for modernity. The Right needs to embrace a new, more human and realistic modernity and build institutions and let the Left sink into post-modern chaos.

There are a number of Right and neoreactionary YouTubers (some of whom are now on bitchute and similar because of cancellation) who were starting to advocate along similar lines, i.e. more action in the real world rather than on-line.

Then COVID hit. How convenient for TBTB. TBTB has many weapons to aim at those who attempt to create competing centers of powers: fed infiltrators, honey pots, grifters, woke mobs, etc.

The Right is often an even worse enemy speculating on who among them are feds, grifters, and honey pots. Not to mention the purity spiraling.

Movements like the Canadian truckers and the French Yellow Vests are the best hope because their cause resonates quickly with a wide range of people so infiltration is difficult and can be overwhelmed by shear numbers. These movements may not always demand things that all conservatives can get behind, but any truly mostly peaceful resistance to TBTB should be welcomed wholeheartedly.

Thank you for the ping, Publius. Much appreciated.

We have to accept the fact that Conservatives are largely (but not wholly) compelled by belonging to a collective.

Our identity as Conservatives is largely individualistic, and that is in direct contrast to Leftists, who are nearly wholly into the concept of the group, with the associated groupthink.

And this puts us at a disadvantage. We largely want to be left alone to pursue what is best for us.

Leftists pursue the goals of the collective, but they fail to see the drawbacks of collectivism until they are crushed by it, and at that point, it is too late to convert. Many, like the prisoners in the Gulag who wept at the death of the man who put them there (Stalin) will not even make that conversion to individualism even when they are on their knees and the pistol is being pointed at the back of their neck.

I don’t know how we get around this. I have been to many conservative demonstrations and protests, and most people there are not enthusiastic about being there in the same way that Leftists revel in it.

Conservatives would rather be doing something constructive. Earning a living. Fixing the garage door. Building a table. Fishing. You name it, whatever makes them happy or they view as necessary. Conservatives enjoy being together and sharing experiences and civil discourse with like-minded people, but all in all, protesting isn’t our thing. We don’t have protests and demonstrations because we need purpose and belonging. We engage in those things because we feel they are necessary, in much the same way fixing the fence or replacing the gasket on the toilet is necessary.

Leftists view protests and demonstrations quite differently, I assure you. The feed off of it. They love it. It gives them purpose, and a feeling of belonging.

All this does put us at a disadvantage. We get involved because the pain level of the tyranny reaches a threshold that informs us we must deal with it. As a result, we are harder to group and direct. It is in our nature.

Our strength is also a weakness, and beady-eyed thuggish Leftists understand this quite well and do all they can to exploit it.

If you haven’t noticed, in the past, they wanted to hide their motives and actions, preferring to carry out their goals under the radar and behind the scenes, so as not to increase the pain level in conservatives, and that has worked well for them. Just look at where we are now.

When individualistic "conservatives", i.e. libertarians refer to groups they like to use the word "collective" to tar paleocons and populist conservatives as closet marxists.

We conservatives prefer to use the word "community" with all of its positive and life-affirming connotations.

The first Europeans to establish permanent footholds in America did so as communities, e.g. the Spanish missionaries, the various French, English and Dutch religious colonies. There were no John Galts.

The history of America is its rise as Ameeicans worked together and its fall as the worship of freedom for freedom's sake and vapid indivualism led to the atomization of the population and the rise of the centralized state to fill the gaps left by broken marriages, emptied churches, and hollowed out service organizations.

That is an important distinction you make. There is indeed a difference between a “collective” and a “community”.

Conservatives want community, but don’t want a collective.

Leftists want a collective, but don’t want a community.

And there is a difference between “individualism” and “vapid individualism” in my opinion. Individualism can be an integral part and dovetail quite naturally with “Community”. (A “community” can appreciate and respect an individual)

A “Collective” cannot abide an individual. In a “Collective”, the individual must be eliminated.

I do differ your negative connotation of freedom by characterizing the desire for freedom as “the worship of freedom for freedom’s sake”.

I do agree with your assessment of “vapid individualism” as being a large component of what is wrong with America. “Vapid Individualism” has indeed allowed the state to fill in those gaps left when there is no community.

Individualism without Community leads to tyrannical collectivism.

Individualism with Community is compatible and vital to Liberty and Freedom.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.