Rethinking ‘The Right’
Chad Felix Greene

I agree that terminology is the center of understanding, let alone communication. The re-definition of terms is the first and most profound (and destructive) thing any psyop does — of any kind.

The problem at this point is really that political sides are no longer sides. I joked earlier today that my philosophy was “plaid.” I’m a California girl who grew up a liberal, and I’m a 20-years Ozarks constitutionalist who is a major patriot and hence a conservative. I’m not either party (cola wars corporatism). I’m not a centrist or a libertarian, but I overlap with a little of everything. Mostly I’m socially liberal right up to the point where it takes someone else’s money or gives the government more power, at which point I’m definitely conservative. I overlap enough with any party that I can find the things in common and get on well with anyone.

(Well, excepting the horrible radicalization that our schooling, and ‘4th estate is a 5th column’ media, have done to the modern left, which thinks any disagreement with them is a threat to their existence and must be polarized and destroyed. They’re pretty difficult to have a conversation with about anything more controversial than say… potato salad. And even then… :-) Wasn’t that way 10 years ago, sigh.)

Maybe the whole concept is the problem. What we have lost that hurts us the most is the underlying assumption that what we have is what we want; that capitalism and a democratic republic are practical ideals worth pursuing, and that the good of our country leads to the good of our people, and is worth supporting.

I mean, it’s a lot easier to define yourself when everyone generally shares the same central circle of assumptions and basics.

But now the same “base of assumption” that was a given up until about 10–20 years ago, is considered some kind of far right-wing extreme. I realize part of that is the left’s branding/association, but in a way it really is. Even people who are conservatives, or think they are, I’ve had debates with about issues of free speech and protected class-groups and so on, and they clearly just missed a huge chunk of critical civics education. (As did I. Maybe it’s whether people read anything after high school/college!) What constitutes the center is now some very odd semi-marxist mostly-civics-illiterate conglomerate of ‘ideas’ that only sometimes relate to what should be the “agreed upon central basics” for our nation.

Right now the quantity of marxism — from totally open, to socialist-lite versions of it — all over the country is excessive. While the left is ranting about the nazis getting us all (while behaving amazing just like nazis), the old Soviet philosophy McCarthy was so paranoid about walked right in and got comfortable and bred and multiplied and is a far greater danger to us — the antifa disaster is a walking testament to Alinsky’s rules for radicals.

This shift is especially concerning when immigration policies bring in mass peoples who either support socialism (often it’s all they know), or support get-stuff-free-ism, and most of them have a very high replacement rate for childbirth. The moment the vote is affected (already a done deal), we lost our “underlying assumptions” through vote-competition, never mind foreign invasion. Give it a decade, maybe more? — Texas will be blue and there will never be a red President again. Unless DJT can end up winging his own party and winning with it, giving us at least three, which might save us in the future.

(This note about the vote change toward socialism due to immigration is often seen as racism. It isn’t about race. It’s about culture. I married someone who grew up in a communist regime, couldn’t get any whiter than that boy, but having had the experience, I would never want to bring people from that culture here in bulk. Happy to have folks from any culture that can become part of and strengthen the conglomerate we have, though, regardless of race {and even aside from modern issues of islam}.)

So when it comes to making up names or labels for what one “is,” now the actual ‘range’ isn’t just a couple generalities and a few issues that differ. Now it’s an entire human-spectrum of difference.

I meet people who think they are anarchists. They can’t explain to me how that does not, after a few weeks, become street feudalism — “I got more guns than you, so now your stuff is mine and you work for me.”

I meet endless people who think they are socialists because “It works in Sweden.” I try to explain that Sweden is a market economy with heavy taxes for some socialized things but it just sails overhead. And what worked for Sweden when it had a massive % of people in the workforce, is changing now that immigration changed that ratio. And our ratio is much, much worse. So ‘single payer’ medical insurance for example is a whole different story here than there. So that’s an example of an ‘issue’ that someone might use to define themselves politically, but it’s complicated.

In the end, it comes down to: you cannot reason someone out of a position that reason did not get them into. And you have to educate people because as long as they think things like socialism and anarchy are “equally valid approaches” to government — as if ours is a whim that we can change on the fly because gee it seems like a good idea — then they are lost to us, as voters and to some degree as countrymen.

There has to be a central agreement about basic tenets, before we can have much of a centralized language that all means the same thing about it. And there has to be that central agreement before mapping out our “points of difference” becomes merely mapping out a few details, as opposed to working with completely different maps entirely.

I’m sorry this is rambling. Need to be sleeping instead of internet-ing. :-)

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.