Category Archives: Conservatism

Understanding Ourselves

We don’t truly understand the modern right.

No one does. I honestly don’t either. Well, I have an idea, but that comes a little later.

While we can all understand the motivations, goals, driving forces and spirit of the movement, we demonstrably do not understand it. My rationale in making this statement is an important distinction- while we can understand what is behind our ongoing revolutionary period, we cannot model it in the real world. We are unable to define where it will succeed and where it will not. It’s hard to say exactly why growth can be so rapid, yet seemingly capped in Germany, or how Geert Wilders lost his First-Place spot within a fortnight of the Dutch Elections. It’s hard to chalk it up to anything beyond the Anglophonic Spirit as to why Brexit and Trump succeeded while Le Penn failed (which is a fun an interesting explanation, truly, but I don’t believe a very good one).  When the French Nationalists, Hofer, and Wilders all piled up their second-place finishes, it seemed that our historical moment had passed. However, the defeat was not unmitigated, and some would say the results only seemed a failure because of how successful the parties actually were. The historic swell in popularity among ideas that had been confined to fringe movements like the BNP for much of the post-Cold War era was remarkable to begin with, and that we would see anything other than outright victory as a failure is a sign of how high the watermark truly became. The dominant way of thinking, once this was accepted, was espoused in The Economist magazine first- that Nationalism should be seen as neither a fad, nor an instant recipe for revolution- rather, it would become an integral part of European politics. It may not win many elections outright, but it will always be there, draining support from centrist or establishment parties, demanding concessions and coalitions, as many movements have done throughout modern European electoral history. For a while, I toyed with this model and decided it stood up- indeed, it seemed neat and clean, explaining the European Situation well. I would even go as far to say that I liked it.

On further inspection, however, the model has failed to explain a few things.

For example, it doesn’t explain geographical divides. In the V4, largely the cradle of modern anti-establishment right-wing politics, the National Spirit is still alive and well. These nations- Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and what I will only call by the accurate and linguistically aesthetic name Bohemia- continued to successfully stand to the EU and oppose almost all immigration, save for white Ukrainian refugees. Poland’s ruling authoritarian party continued to gain support, and now stands with over majority support in the country’s multi-party system. The staunch arch-conservative Viktor Obran of Hungary is massively popular, and the EU reaction to his border fence has only made him more firmly supported among his nation.

This question cannot be answered by a simple historical outlook tacked onto the original model. Certainly, it seems as though there is a Cold War East-West divide, down to internal divisions in countries themselves. Look at Germany- the AfD fared well for a relatively new part through much of the country, but the truly stunning results were all found in the former GDR. Additionally, the V4 were all firmly within Moscow’s Sphere of Influence. All this would lead one to assume it is a divide largely based off of Cold War allegiance. However, this cannot be the case.

For example, look to the Baltics. The predominant leftist, neoliberal, often green and socialist sentiment there is a complete buck to the idea that post-communists states serve especially as an incubator for the far right. For a disparate example on the other side of Europe, look to Romania, a post-communist state dominated by Social Democrats. Such undercurrents can be found quite often in the East, and with an n as small as we currently have for measuring European post-communist states, it destroys the idea that there exists a simple causal relationship here.

However, what really dealt the death blow to this amended model, in my opinion, was the result of the Austrian elections. Here we had an affluent, Western European state which had just put a green in the presidency twice elect a party lead by Sebastian Kurz. Kurz, the youngest European Foreign Minister and now youngest Chancellor in Austrian History, previously proposed to ban non-German version of the Koran and argued before the EU in favor of a hardline, 50-point plan to crack down on border crossings, and campaigned on getting Austria out of the EU altogether. He is currently presiding over a rightward shift in both his nominally center-right party and Austria altogether.

Now, we have the Czech Elections. A post-communist state, certainly, but quite modernized by most measures- it ranks next to hypermodern South Korea in terms of GDP per capita (PPP), and not too far off from countries like Japan, France, and Israel. This most recent Czech election was possibly the most significant internal political upheaval a country can have. Leading the pack is Andrej Babiš’ party. Babiš is not a conservative by traditional measurements, but rather an anti-establishment pragmatist billionaire populist (never heard that before). In second place we have the conservatives, and in a tie for a very close third, we have the aggressively anti-establishment Pirate Party (who have never before held a seat in the Czech Parliament) and the Eurosceptic, right-wing populist SPD. The Communist party fell from third place to fifth place- and shockingly, the ruling Social Democratic party collapsed, falling from a strong first place to sixth in vote share. In neighboring Hungary and Poland, it was the right-wing, nationalist sentiment that drove stunning successes, but here, it is the populism. So what is it? Is it an economic divide that drives this- and if so, why has Germany generally stuck with Merkel? It isn’t geographic- could it be cultural? Economic? Well, perhaps.

I have an inkling as to what might be the determining factor. I am of the belief that there is a determining factor to whether or not a state will undergo a right wing or populist upheaval, and if so, what sort of upheaval it will go through.

I believe that a country will undergo such a thing if, and only if, two things are true- one, that the country is largely divided into homogeneous and high-trust societal units, and secondly, that these units perceive an existential threat for themselves and those like them that is not yet completed. If this threat is primarily demographic, the upheaval will tend to the right, while more economic issues will lend themselves to general populism.

This, in my opinion, explains a lot. It helps explain basic things, and bases itself off of them, such as why whites in large, diverse cities vote for the establishment left primarily. It helps explain why countries like Poland and Hungary, who can see what has happened in Germany and France, react more strongly to it than those countries do themselves. It explains why the Baltics, not in the path of Middle Eastern Migrants and for whom neoliberalism has proved an economic success, retain their leftist, often technocratic governments. It explains why general, big-tent populism was the primary winner in Bohemia, who has failed to restart their economy since 2008. It explains even the perceived East-West divide on the continent when one considers homogeneity-reducing immigration was far higher in the West, and the stifling effects of communism on economic growth in the East. Moreover, it explains even internal divisions- for example, the support for Brexit in the Labor North, Left-Wing Wales, and non-industrial Cornwall. It is even applicable in the US, and explains a number of primary and general election results- why Bernie won the Rust Belt but lost California, for one, or why Ted Cruz won in stable, seemingly non-threatened Iowa but lost when the discussion turned to opiates in New Hampshire. It even helps explain why Trump came so close in Minnesota- the influx of Muslims was threatening to the homogeneity of the majority, who (because of the State’s large, decentralized and largely rural nature) could see it, but remained 90%+ white.

Now, my model may very well not be correct. As I said before, the n in relation to these things is small- even if every European Country imitated it perfectly, as well as the US and Japan, the n would barely go above 50, and we’ve only been in a period of major upheaval for about one year. We’ve had enough time to feel out if some things might not be true, but proving anything will take a long while. Additionally, the model isn’t entirely comprehensive, and may only be effective at making snapshot calls. However, all things considered, I know not any model other than this that can explain the what and why of our modern revolution.

A Birth in Barcelona; or, The Case for Conservative Action

Conservative doesn’t mean a lot. In America especially, the label has become such a broad descriptor, and the “conservative” Republican Party so big-tent that I doubt there’s a single pillar of modern policy that truly unites all those who suppose themselves conservative. Evangelicals, Libertarians, right-wing Populists, Reaganites, modern disciples of Goldwater, even those that many would consider to be in the greater “alt-right movement”, from Reactionaries to Anarcho-Capitalists to National Socialists consider themselves right-of-center, and thus, perhaps erroneously in some cases, conservative. We live in a time when you wouldn’t be wrong to say that the horizons of expectations for conservative thought are being furthered and undermined primarily by madmen on Twitter, everyone from Huey Long-loving National Bolsheviks to German Idealists, and in some measure all the way up to the President himself. Certainly, there are guiding principles of order and tradition that you will find extant at least at the base level of reason within all right-wing schools of thought, but it is almost impossible to identify a single action that a state ought to take according to meta-ideology of Conservatism.

That is, save for one.

There is one thing that all people who legitimately base their worldview off a Western school of conservative thought can attest to; that so long as a state exists it should serve the interests of the Nation. There is no right-wing ideology that disputes this. Whether one is a Libertarian and believes that the state is founded by a people to preserve their rights, a Fascist and sees the state as an expression of the national will, or even as reactionary to be a Neo-Feudalist or Monarchist, the role of the state as serving a nation above all else is one of the most foundational tenets of every branch of Conservative thought. Whether it be a small, ad-hoc body to simply protect the rights of the people, or a paternalistic, absolutist state, this is a bedrock claim of every Conservative ideology, and always finds itself serving as boilerplate in Conservative rhetoric and theory (and from time to time, even governance). Even if one is a pure Integrist, one must concede that the purpose of such action is not God’s alone, nor primarily God’s- if it were, one would seek to either do away with the state altogether in favor of the law of God, or at least remove oneself entirely from politics and work solely as a theologian or artist to bring him glory. Such a concept is not even confined solely to Western Conservatism. For example, any understanding of the Ottoman and Near-Eastern Circle of Justice will reveal those same universal undertones driving the Turkish Empire’s thought. This is as intrinsic to Conservatism as just about anything can be, and is not at all a given- the basic presuppositions of nearly all leftist ideology, from modern Neoliberalism and egalitarian social democracy, all the way to Marxism and left-Anarchism represent a subversive and suicidal forced value judgement of the international over the national, and equity over true interest. This, I believe, is the most important tool for understanding the purpose and vital force for Conservatism.

I forgive you if you don’t see what exactly this has to do with political violence.

Now, I want to clarify what I am proposing. I am not advocating for violence in the way that it is so often portrayed. Most everyone on the right should agree that simply beating protesters or AntiFa on the streets has little real political gain in it, and you one should be very wary of those who disagree. That is why I do not propose that those on the right should continue to just march, get into fights because of it, and be demonized for a week because of it. Certainly, there is something to be said about the visibility and framing that can be parlayed the first or second time, but over time, such a thing within a stable system will do nothing but re-enforce the position of the entrenched establishment, as those on the left and right are pushed from the edges into a security-seeking center.

So, why and how do I support right-wing political violence? It all goes back to Catalonia.

Catalonia is the greatest political event of our time- in my opinion better than Brexit’s 12-point comeback the day of the vote, and yes, even better than Trump’s impossible ascension. The reason why I say this is because Catalonia was barely even a political event. This was supposed to be a grand display of the fine principles of democracy, and the ultimate victory of the far left, who grabbed the Nationalist, Populist surge worldwide and used it to break away from a Kingdom and secure a Marxist State within the EU. Yes, the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice, and now the Catalan people would, through the power of pure, unfettered, unconstitutional democracy, see the dream of the great progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson realized and finally declare independence.

Except that’s not quite what happened. In a slight change of plans, they all got their heads splattered across the sidewalk instead.

The reason for this was coordinated, controlled, and smart actions by Spanish Police and Civilians, representing Nationalist and Conservative interests. Right-Wing civilians would enter and disrupt certain indoor agglomerations of leftists, including meetings and polling stations, reducing the left’s cohesion and organization, usually driving them apart and/or into the street. This usually was not explicitly aggressive, and normally involved only shouting and masses displacing masses. It was violence, but in a strict sense of the word, and if done correctly, the only blows between civilians were from the left, or at least, clearly started by the left. From there, police forces had a much easier time pacifying them.

This is a simple, effective way the right can be physically active in situations like these. The right never came into conflict with police, and successfully stopped, or at least aided the state in stopping, leftist political action. It was, therefore, very clearly an action in the interests of the right. Additionally, while one can lament the entrance of violence into the political process, and desire the removal of it, one cannot argue that a people aiding a state in performing its most basic duty of protecting the nation is at all contrary to either the ideology or spirit of Conservatism when one understands that central rule of Conservatism.

This should manifest thusly- the right stops instigating. Marches will not get us anywhere; right-wing demonstration very rarely has. This has been attested to time and time again. Instead, the right becomes a response crew. When AntiFa or BLM is protesting or reacting to some speaker, the right gears up, but not for some street brawl. Our movement cries out for parallel institutions, and leftist violence hands us the role of a parastatal. The right should be offering protection to any business that wants it. Crazed blacks planning to loot your store because a cop shot a mugger? Communists ready to burn it down because Ann Coulter is explaining why immigration is bad at the local College? Hey, we’ll stand in front of your store and defend it for you. The right should not instigate violence, only defend private property with the consent of owners. Soon, your organizations become known and requested. People see you as a reasonable defense against leftism. And then the seeds of popular right-wing non-governmental organizations are born, and hey, we’re strong and armored to boot. These groups can aide law enforcement rather than fight with them, something that will instantly win over the public. These groups will be organizing, arming, and training young, right-wing men all to the cheers of the public and the acceptance of the police, and stopping leftist demonstrations the entire time. There is no conceivable downside to having a popular and effective paramilitary on your side, and this is the quickest and most effective way to it.

Something was born in Barcelona- the right-wing textbook on physical political action. It’s now up to us- stay our current trajectory and hope one more YouTube vlog will finally be the thing to get Hart-Celler repealed, or actually do something to change it.

Dennis the Menace

Embarrassed as I am to admit it, I was once an avid fan of Dennis Prager’s “Prager University.” This youtube channel — as much a university as “Trump University” — is the brainchild of Right-Wing radio host Dennis Prager, who apparently seeks to brainwash young high school to college aged Americans into pre-Trumpian conservatism with sleek, colorful cartoons narrated by prominent conservative academics. Of course, a great deal of these videos are informative and actually make sound arguments that answer ubiquitous Democrat talking points young people are bombarded with in schools and on television.

Despite a good deal of useful content, the overall tone and subject matter of the channel basically confirms my enduring view of conservatism as an ideological ghetto which shackles its adherents to anachronistic values and ideas whose time has long passed. If this were the “university’s” only sin, it could be forgiven, as being on the losing side of history is an intrinsic characteristic of conservatism. Several of the channel’s videos however, highlight a trend I’ve often noticed in countercultural movements, and should be avoided at all costs.

I’m referring to two videos in particular which were published last year — “Did Bush Lie About Iraq?” and “Why the U.S. Invaded Iraq.” There’s no real reason for them to exist. If you’re a Right-winger still defending George W. Bush and his disastrous neoconservative foreign policy in The Current Year, please stop. Aside from (probably) making terrible arguments, probably the only reason anyone would continue to defend an indefensible position is because it “fits your narrative.”

This is Prager’s mentality — “Republicans are good, and Bush was a Republican, therefore Bush is good, and we must defend him.” This is false — the Bush Doctrine was objectively bad for the United States and every other country involved, and it has objectively made the world a worse, more dangerous place. For this and many other reasons, zealous belief in the Iraq War is likely repulsive to anyone who isn’t already a Bush Republican. Indeed, the only takeaway I get from those two videos is that conservatives like Dennis Prager are too caught up in their own ideology to see the folly of its practical consequences.

Of course, mainstream conservatives like Prager aren’t the only victims of this phenomenon. Trumpists, for example, often take it upon themselves to defend every gaffe or blunder made by their “God-Emperor” — like defending “grab her by the pussy” as a legitimate, okay thing to say; or fawning over his many weak policy planks and decisions, even though there is substantial room for legitimate criticism; or deriding all of his critics (both on the Left and the Right) as triggered snowflake cucks, unworthy of debate or discussion. Trump supporters still can and should criticize their President, it’s not their duty to defend the stupid or indefensible things he’s said in the past.

This is a problem across the entire spectrum of the Right — Israel sycophants needlessly defend IDF war crimes and unlimited settlement growth, many in the Alt Right actually believe idiotic conspiracy theories like Pizzagate or deny the Holocaust, many Libertarians still feel they have to explain why we shouldn’t have roads, and so on. All of these arguments or ideas serve no purpose other than to repel outsiders from joining these movements.

If you’re on the Right, before making an argument or coming to a conclusion, ask yourself: “Would I still believe all this if I didn’t hold all of my other views?” If your answer is not an emphatic yes, then realize that you’re not objectively analyzing facts, you’re lazily substituting ideology for reason. You’re no different from the people who defend George W. Bush in 2017.

The Immigration Dilemma

Last Friday, President Trump signed Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States” into law, implementing a temporary ban on immigration from seven high risk countries in the Middle East and North Africa, among other measures. Predictably, the precious global citizens coddled for eight years by a President who could not utter the words “radical Islamic terror,” were outraged at such an insensitively pragmatic approach to securing the nation’s borders.

Without a warning shot, without the usual, pathetic groveling to the “millions of peaceful Muslims,” the President of the United States acted swiftly in the security interests of the nation and for no other purpose. For the first time in eight years, federal immigration policy was adopted based on security rather than political considerations. As a result, while the Soros coalition stamps their feet and cries with Chuck Schumer, over the next 30 days our vetting procedures will improve and Americans will be safer; that’s a good deal.

Unfortunately, there is a deep, underlying problem with this Executive Order and the rhetoric used by Press Secretary Spicer and the President. Many say that the EO goes too far, that it unfairly targets one religion, that it resembles a Muslim ban. Many conservatives (cuckservatives) have complained that such a discriminatory policy betrays America’s founding principles and values, that America has strength in its ideological diversity.

Neither of these concerns are legitimate. The immigration “ban” is temporary, and upon the conclusion of a 90 day period during which the vetting process for immigrants from nations compromised by terror can be improved, immigration from those countries will resume. Moreover, nations with large Muslims populations such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Bangladesh, and others are not included in even the temporary ban; if President Trump were trying to keep Muslims out of the country, this Executive Order would be an abject failure.

Additionally, Trump’s Executive Order does not betray any of the principles under which the nation was founded, this is more demagoguing by establishment Republicans who still flinch like rescue dogs after eight years at the mercy of political correctness. Moreover, the Founders grappled with the Barbary pirates of the Maghreb in the first two decades of the 19th century, it is dubious they would have endorsed the wholesale import of such an alien culture as the West has today.

The problem with President Trump’s Executive Order is that it does not go far enough, and neither does the rhetoric which typically accompanies it. In their haste to construct a logical defense of the EO to the hordes of anarchists threatening to shut down airports and highways, conservatives fall to their knees, desperately trying to educate their ignorant compatriots. They proudly, righteously defend the EO from accusations that its intention is to bar immigration from the Middle East.

But why does it not?

At the most fundamental level, the kind of inclusive, multicultural immigration policy endorsed by both the Democrat and Republican establishment, that just anybody can come to the country in large numbers, is incompatible with the current form of government. Given that everything from a Constitutional Amendment to the Presidential election are determined through democratic processes, the maintenance of a free and liberal government is wholly dependent on the demography of the electorate.

Republicans seem to argue at once that the people of the Middle East do not share our values, yet at the same time are not only welcome but entitled to migrate to America en masse. This is a circle which Speaker Ryan and others cannot square. Many arguments have been invented to wish this problem away using the magical logic of American Exceptionalism.

Establishment types argue that the nation can absorb millions of immigrants from around the world who prefer tyrannical welfare states because they will assimilate into exceptional American culture. Apparently they will assimilate into small government constitutionalism through unionized public school teachers and the mainstream media. Moreover, we can observe from Europe that Muslim migrants are having a difficult time assimilating in the over 450 Muslim “no-go zones” in which the government has effectively ceded control to mobs of violent migrants.

Another popular line of reasoning is that the vast majority of the 10 bazillion Muslims in the world are actually peaceful, freedom loving liberals just dying to escape the uniformly miserable countries which they created. There are some terrorists, just like in any other religion, but the rest are cool, just like in any other religion. Europe is learning the hard way that the distinction between Islamic terrorists and citizens of Islamic states is not their degree of radicalization but their propensity for violence.

It is no coincidence that from Morocco to Indonesia, Islam has wrought nothing but brutal, repressive, sexist, violent autocracies. Surely, if there were such a vast gap between the policies of the state and the principles of the people, one out of the fifty majority Muslim countries in three continents would be palatable by Western standards. Sweden is on the brink of collapse as a result of massive Muslim immigration. Germany, Belgium, France, and Italy are under an almost perpetual state of emergency in their effort to combat latent terrorists which have clearly already infiltrated their populations.

The madness must stop. The President is wise enough to recognize the unique threat that Islamic terrorism poses to the West and the world, yet perhaps the nation and his electorate are not ready to draw the connection between Islamic terrorism and Islam itself. After all, should we consider it a victory that we prevented one or two terrorists from entering the country while thousands who hold many of the same beliefs move in next door?

I do not seek to reproduce the extensive case against massive Muslim migration here as Stefan Molyneux, Gatestone Institue, Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, and others have done so well before. This is only to demonstrate one case study in the much more systemic flaw in the nature of the American political system. Conservative decry “identity politics” and liberals deride generalizations based on race or religion; but so long as the Constitution can be amended directly or indirectly at the ballot box, demography remains, in the words of Mark Steyn, our destiny.

As the composition of the nation changes, so too does the government. Though the Founding Fathers accounted for checking and balancing the powers of various civic and government institutions, they hadn’t the foresight to account for the enfranchisement of mobs of illiberal immigrants at the gates. Ultimately this is the nexus at which the libertarian ethic of the liberal Founders meets the timeless pessimistic pragmatism of conservatism. Though the American Experiment lives on in constitutional self-government and democracy, it depends entirely on the vessel of the American nation secured only through the firm hand of the state.

Though this may seem a Statist proposition, the alternative best case scenario is the gradual emergence of a foreign born American electorate which never knew limited government or constitutionalism; a multiethnic unitary government with a vast and corrupt bureaucracy unaccountable to its people. We see a premonition of the worst case scenario in European nations like Sweden and France: formerly advanced and prosperous liberal democracies teetering on the brink of collapse or under constant martial law staving off the unassimilated hordes.

Conservatives and liberals constantly talk about our “values” as a nation. They talk of the altruistic, generous nature of America, a nation so exceptional it could turn its back on its own selfish interests in order to embrace the poor, warring peoples of the third world. In the words of the President, “Can’t happen folks!” The United States can project far more hope to the rest of the world as Gods shining city than by wading knee deep into the muck in order to save foreign peoples from themselves.

Though this may seem callous or cruel, consider the motivations of the globalist powers which propagate for open borders and multiculturalism. In response to reasonable, logistical actions such as the President’s Executive Order to improve vetting procedure, they tell us that even this is too great a burden for immigrants. They tell us that immigrants are entitled to unlimited, unmitigated, unconditional access to the material and cultural fruits of our ancestors who fought, sweat, and bled to build this great country. They tell us that even though there will be more terror, more bloodshed, that “your odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are actually very slim.”

In a word, they prioritize the material comfort of foreign people in foreign lands over the lives of the American people. “So what if there’s more terror?” a British tourist remarked to me at Shia LaBeouf’s He Will Not Divide Us Exhibit, “There’s already crime!” It is dubious whether or not these cosmopolitan virtue signalers would see one or two terrorist attacks as so trivial if their children were among the few people killed in them. The government of the United States of America exists to protect the liberties, but more importantly the lives of the citizens of the United States of America.

We should be tired of hearing about our obligation to the people of Mexico and Syria, what of the Mexican and Syrian governments to their people? The same Latin Americans who see America as the greatest threat to world peace, who break our laws through illegal immigration and who abuse our public services. The same Syrians who almost universally hate the United States and the West, until they find their government deploying chemical weapons in their streets and their neighbors chopping off heads.

The progressives who shill for these open border policies call this sort of appeal “nativist,” “nationalist,” and “xenophobic.” While there is partial truth in all of these accusations, not one of them provides a solution or answers to the inescapable perils of unchecked immigration. Moreover, these labels seem to be almost exclusively applied to the most tolerant, selfless, free societies of the West. Can we think of a few nations in the Middle East which harbor some nativist, nationalist, or xenophobic prejudices? Can we think of a few examples in Africa? In Latin America? In Asia? You’ll never read of those prejudices on Vox or Huffington Post.

For example, in retaliation for Trump’s Executive Order suspending immigration from Iran for 90 days, Iran responded in kind by banning immigration from the United States. Did Ezra Klein issue a report about the xenophobic, anti-semitic, anti-American, anti-Christian, nationalist, nativist Iranian government? Beyond this, few even cared or reacted to Iran’s ban because nobody wants to immigrate to Iran, and there is a reason for this. The immigration crises of the world move in one direction, West. There is a reason for this too.

We have cultivated something remarkably special in the West, particularly exceptional in America. The West is the wealthiest, freest, most prosperous and humane society possibly in the history of the world. Contrary to the belief of people who write words and agitate for a living, the West did not become so great because of “privilege.” This society was built through centuries of sacrifice in brutal wars, on unlivable factory floors, and intense thought and study in libraries. In short, this magnificent triumph of human ingenuity and labor is not ours to give away, we must preserve our inheritance for the next generation and for posterity.

We can have immigration, we can welcome new Americans into the nation from all walks of life and from all countries, of course. But we must never forget that immigration is maintained so that new citizens will assimilate and make the country better, never the other way around. So long as we keep these considerations in mind we will command respect from the world, the respect we deserve.

Tread on Them

Moments after President Trump’s historic inauguration last Friday, Alt-Right leader Richard Spencer was speaking to CBS News in a live interview when Suddenly a masked man — likely affiliated with the leftist terrorist group, ANTIFA — ran in front of the camera and sucker-punched Spencer, knocking him to the ground.

This attack, and its implications, inspired jubilation across the left wing blogosphere. The New York Times, for instance, published an article titled “Attack on Alt-Right Leader Has Internet Asking: Is it O.K. to Punch a Nazi?” The answer, unsurprisingly, from most of those interviewed was an unequivocal yes. One woman, who publishes a Tumblr blog called “Unequivocally Hilarious” wrote that “If you’re having a conversation about whether or not it’s okay to punch a Nazi, you’re having the wrong conversation.” Another interviewee, Twitter personality Kara Calavera, tweeted that “punching Nazis is the most [American] thing to do.”

The most noteworthy thing about this Spencer fiasco, however, was what was left largely unmentioned in this fountain of ink — on the other side of Washington, Republican commentator and pollster Frank Luntz was also attacked in a similar fashion, likely by members of the same group that attacked Spencer. Interestingly enough, Luntz and Spencer come from opposite ends of the right-wing spectrum — during the primaries, Luntz was a denizen of the “Never Trump” movement, and to my knowledge, didn’t vote for Donald Trump in the general election either.

Moreover, in counter-protests to the leftist demonstrations across the country, Trump supporters were met with similar violence. Live footage from Washington on the day of the inauguration shows counter-protesters being shouted at, threatened with sexual assault, beaten up, and one woman even being set on fire.

To ANTIFA and groups like it, there is no difference between moderates like Luntz and open white nationalists like Spencer, nor between the thousands of counter-protesters of every ideology in between. To the Left, the vast and diverse people of the Trump coalition are merely obstacles standing in the way of their political goals, and for that reason — in the eyes of many — violence against the Right is justified.

Even more emblematic of the current political climate is the counter-protesters’ response to this disturbing turn of events. As is not uncommon in any Republican gathering, you could find in the crowds of counter protesters at least one person proudly waving the Gadsden flag — a yellow banner with a snake printed above the words “Don’t Tread on Me.” If movements are defined by their symbols, then “Don’t Tread on Me” paints these conservatives as effete reactionaries.

Leftists agitators and groups like ANTIFA have figuratively declared war on the Right. To them, anyone on the Right is fair game, an enemy, and worthy of getting beaten up. The Right’s response is not to fight back or, God forbid, use the heavy hand of the government against these anarchists; but rather to just stand there, taking it, begging for mercy, waving their flag. “Please, please, please don’t step on the snake.”

This underscores a problem that has challenged the Right throughout all of American history, and has been particularly debilitating towards modern conservatives. A conservative, by definition, abides by their ideology, values and traditions that are perpetually on the path towards decline. If they were not declining, then the terms conservative — which derives from the operative “to conserve” — and liberal would not arise.

The Left, on the other hand, represents new, revolutionary forces which overthrow established (usually conservative) social and political orders — as such, the new invariably defeats the old, giving rise to new establishments. History belongs to those who change it, never to those battling to rewind it. This is why the (then) Leftist Puritans overthrew the Royal House of Stuart in 17th century Britain, why the Jacobins overthrew Louis XVI, why the Bolsheviks overthrew the Romanovs.

Of course, none of these examples work as an analogy for today’s ANTIFA because — without a modicum of doubt — the Left is the establishment in 21st century America. The entire culture is Leftist. The entire media (including ostensibly conservative networks like Fox) operates on liberal premises. Almost every Hollywood star is a liberal. All of the country’s largest corporations are Leftist and controlled by Leftist directors. The university system functions in a way that does not allow students to graduate as conservatives unless they entered as conservatives.

Absurdly, the masked men waving black banners of anarchy who attacked Richard Spencer and Frank Luntz could recite their ideology before a gathering of Fortune 500 CEOs and the managing partners of all their law firms, and their speech would offend literally not one person in the room. In fact, almost all would actually agree with them!

Indeed, it is the Right — particularly Trump supporters — who are the true heirs to the revolutionary mantle and the underground, punk aesthetic that would guide them towards a more compelling narrative. Yet they choose to reject it. They wave flags that beg for mercy. Their slogans can be summarized by the phrase “please leave us alone.” They behave like reactionaries losing their country, when they should act like revolutionaries taking it back.

Is there anything Trump supporters can do to make sure they don’t repeat the mistakes of past conservative movements? They can start by permanently excising the words “we just want to be left alone” from their parlance, and tearing up those accursed yellow banners of passive reaction. If they were to do this sincerely, their movement would cease to be “conservative” in its essence, and would evolve into a force capable of shaping history.