The RSS is Hindu. Viktor Orban says, "Christianity is Europe's last hope.". The exquisite parallel state was Christianity's usurpation of Roman political power. So why not acknowledge religion is the key to the successful parallel? Any body with their eyes open can see the religious fervor of the revolutionaries and their hopes kindled in the prophetic vision of destroying their oppressors.
People have to believe in their gods. There is no connective tissue in the body-politic without the cult. Religion is the key to understanding man.
You can also add Poland's Solidarność anti-communist trade union, although it should be kept in mind that Poland was overwhelmingly Catholic, and Catholicism had come to be identified with oppositional discourse and activity.
While Christianity may be an important source of motivation and inspiration for many in a future "parallel state" movement, that movement should not, of itself, be identified with Christianity. Why not? - For the following three reasons at least:
1. Christianity has historically been anti-theocratic. In the 5th century, St Augustine carefully laid out the arguments in "The City of God"; he was not expressing a personal preference, but built his case on theological and philosophical grounds. This anti-theocratic stance has been the norm in Western Christianity ever since, and where historical departures occurred, it was State that took control of the Church, not the other way around. "Confessional states" are often confused with theocracies by modern secular writers; they misunderstand the distinction, however: the ruler is not required to be atheistic or religiously indifferent, but rather, the hierarchies of Church and State must not overlap.
2. Modern states are not confessional, and Catholicism in many countries has rivals from various forms of Protestantism; not only conservatism, but leftism can be found in both. There are also secular conservatives who may have much to offer to any "parallel state" movement. In such modern states, to identify the movement with one section of Christianity would exclude most of the potential participants.
3. A near precedent in recent history was Action française (AF), set up at the turn of the last century because of the monopoly of secularism (and indeed Freemasonry) in all the institutions of the 3rd Republic. The state confiscations of Church property, and other lawless persecutions of priests, monks, nuns and laity might have made AF seem like an invaluable ally for Catholics, and many laymen thought so. Nevertheless, it was deliberately destroyed by Pope Pius XI in 1926, on various grounds, including its view of the Church as a socially useful institution (while agnostic on its claims to truth), and the impression it created that there was a package of political beliefs and actions that Catholics should feel obliged to support. Catholic AF members were to withdraw from the organisation on pain of excommunication. AF quickly collapsed after the ruling. Pius XI was under no illusions about the hostility of the French Republican state, but he still regarded the AF as too dangerous to the faith to keep as a friend. Our circumstances have changed over the past century, but there is still a large enough overlap to make any Action-française type organization unwise. There was even an attempt to do so during the past decade in France, but (in my opinion) it could not decide whether it was primarily political or just an association of pious laity, and the French state settled the matter by banning it.
For these reasons, I think that any parallel-state movement should not be explicitly Christian, and any Christian currents within it should remain informal.
Nationalism seems very much at odds with the professed principles of the Roman Catholic Church (and many other religions). For example, "In Christ the is no East or West", etc. I think hooking up religion, conservatism, and nationalism / tribalism is going to be a lot trickier than you all seem to think. Universal nationalism / tribalism seems pretty much self-defeating and contradictory. In recent history, nationalism, whether from the Right, the Left, or the middle, has generally come to remarkably bad ends. Maybe there's something wrong with it?
"The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity." (2239, Catechism of the Catholic Church)." Sure. Or one might say "Your country is your mother. You belong to her, and she belongs to you, and whether you like her or not, she's still your mother." But love for or responsibility for one's country and people are not the same as nationalism. At least, when I usually encounter nationalism, it's an ideology of preference and domination, a group conviction of one's own superiority and right to rule and possibly exclude others. Hence I see a conflict between universalizing religions like (most of) Christianity and nationalism. Yes, you could nuance it around to soften it up, to be less hostile, but that's not the way self-defined nationalists typically behave in my experience. I doubt if many people would have trouble thinking of examples.
My apologies, but it was not my intent to touch a nerve, but just show that the Roman Catholic Church IS at odds with nationalism without being at odds with patriotism. The key word there is "charity," the penultimate theological virtue, which is not a typical feature of nationalism.
Nationalism and tribalism are not synonyms. But in this case, the "tribe" can genuinely be defined as homo sapiens humanity. The transhumanists have other plans. I am on team Pro-human. Where do you stand?
There is a serious motivation problem though. When you have one side filled with people who just want to live their lives and be left alone up against a side who wakes up every day imaging how they can "fix big problems!" I.e get into everyone's business, it's not a fair fight.
N.S., love the article. My own thinking has led me to similar conclusions about what is necessary to build a conservative movement. One question I’ve been pondering is how we can prevent a conservative movement from being overtaken by the most radical right-wing members in a time when politics is so reactionary. I fear that the success of a truly principled conservative movement could be thwarted by a failure to fend against the right flank. While, sometimes, saying the most inflammatory, controversial hot-take can win support among a right-wing base, this tends to alienate those who are more moderate. I agree with your analysis that what is needed is a pre-political movement. I believe there is a large majority of moderates in this country who would be happy to return to a more traditional culture, but are not particularly interested in politics and are often turned off by movements considered to be overtly partisan. The question is how to balance the need to have strong conservative principles at the core of a movement, without allowing it to be overtaken by the loudest, most reactionary voices in the room, simply because they appear to be an enemy of your enemy.
I agree that this is a potential problem, but if more moderate people don't take action to lead such a movement, then more radical people will.
I'd also say that it is pretty imperative that such a movement not frame itself as overtly political/partisan at all, at least a first. It's purpose would be to help people and build community at a local level, and therefore would I think be more successful at pulling in the more normal people you are talking about; with enough such people involved it would also be more difficult to swing to extreme positions.
Yes, you can't go in with Conservative on your shirt. It's a subversive process, like it or not. You have to use a Christian tactic. You don't preach at people, you show them what being happy looks like and let them ask you how.
I completely agree that such a movement should not frame itself as overtly political/partisan, at least at first. I think it's important that any organization has enough foundational principles to prevent itself from being corrupted by the same forces that have corrupted our current institutions, while avoiding taking political stances unnecessary to fulfill it's purpose: helping people and building local communities.
Instead of starting off a grassroots movement with who to exclude, start off with what we most value: love of God, family, home, community, country, in that order.
Love of humanity is the core of Christianity. You know, the whole John 3:16 thing — for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son…. And Jesus commanded, “Love one another, as I have loved you.” (John 15:12) That core isn’t changed by professing Christians who fail to demonstrate it. But even when love is demonstrated, it isn’t acknowledged as such in woke culture, since love, to them, means approving of practically anything a person says is their truth.
The list was kinda modeled on what Jesus answered when asked what is the most important commandment and he answered (I'm paraphrasing), "First, love of God and then love of neighbor."
It seems pretty obvious to me that one cannot love God and love his neighbor AND be on "team transhumanist." I have no objection to putting "humanity" on a list of loves, but it is too abstract for my tastes. It's like hearing someone is for world peace and immediately a bumper sticker pops into my head about "whirled peas."
There are lots of things that "seem pretty obvious" that are nevertheless vulnerable to hijacking through the use of layered language. It's easy to defend against if you know the tactics. Harder if you get blindsided.
We have human beings declaring themselves to be gods, in the style of the old god-kings. Are they the God being reference? (Obviously no, but they'll try!)
The parable of the Good Samaritan is extraordinary, but only if you truly understand what a Samaritan was to that audience: scum. It's specifically renouncing tribalism in favor of a greater concept of neighbor that encompasses all of humanity. Unfortunately, most people don't understand the parable. It gets misinterpreted as "my neighbor is the person who does good things for me."
The list is a good list if you're prepared to explain and DEFEND each of those terms. But all of them can be twisted.
That's why I have started throwing in "of the species homo sapiens" as the definition of human. The transhumanists are trying to steal that word too. Notice how they claim that affirmation will make them human? Funny definition of human there.
Just get hyper aware of how language can be twisted and actively defend against it.
By all means, let’s be crystal clear. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is about as clear as it gets, but when they asked, “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus answered with the parable of the Good Samaritan. That was clear on clear.
I have been waiting for this - a plan for a path forward - and away from globalism. I would love to hear more about the ins and outs & the brass tacks of this parallel state. It puts me in mind of how the Catholic Church in Poland safeguarded their culture through the Church. With the accession of the first & only Polish Pope - John Paul II - he was able to speak to the faithful in Poland lending his weight giving rise to the Solidarity Movement. There is an excellent video on Amazon Prime about this - "Liberating a Continent: John Paul II and the Fall of Communism". You have given me hope that there IS a way out. Thank you.
The timing could be perfect. It's becoming an ugly, scary, depressing world out there, overloaded with hate, bile, resentment, blame. Really, an unending nightmare. Into that mess, throw sunshine, invitation, aspiration, humor and optimism. And see who comes to the party. Be brave, dare to smile, be happy, worshipful, and laugh a lot. Brilliant.
Tell me where to sign up. I have no great stash of money, my body can be a bit undependable, but I'm a quick learner, passionate, and I have a modicum of intelligence and some ideas.
Thinking about your examples, there is the interesting point that China, DPRK, Vietnam, Myanmar, Cuba and other communist states have been able to nullify these sorts of movements - and indeed actively suppress them (Xinjiang, being just one example). So what made the successful examples successful? One aspect seems to be imperial rule - the perception that the elite were captured and indeed, agents of, foreign powers (Russians, mostly, though for the Hindu Nationalists there were the twin occupations of the Mughals and the British. The "people" under Hindu nationalism do not really include the Muslim minority.
Moreover, in China, you had the Communists FIRST make intersectional arguments against the KMT - that "nationalists" would insist that everyone become Han. Then, having secured power, that is exactly what they engaged in - a cultural enforcement on language, clothing, religion and suppression of ethnic minorities.
All of which suggests that success in this endeavor is going to require the demonstration that the American / Western elite are in fact all one blob CAPTURED by Communist China and visiting all of the many evils upon the West that are deliberately ineffective and ineffectual, that they are designed NOT TO WORK. Both to create new excuses for more powers to be ceded and also as a means of destroying the system itself so it can be replaced. Attacking both the patriotism of the elite and its corruption (and the channels through which the money flows) are crucial aspects of this counter-revolution.
One thing that is underappreciated is the degree to which inflation, budget balance and left financing could be addressed through a new approach to taxation. While the left frequently argues about the need to tax the rich more, they put the emphasis on RATES of tax, rather than on the more important question of what counts as INCOME, since this is really how rich people avoid taxation. They get to take all sorts of benefits and expense them rather than pay taxes on them, or they simply defer recognition of them, or and this is the biggest scam - they donate them (to lefty captured institutions). Gifts of appreciated securities are the ultimate tax scam. The appreciation was never taxed (since there was no sale) BUT the full amount of the market value gets to be deducted from income. So there is a double offset - no income is recognized but there is a tax deduction awarded for the untaxed and unrecognized gains. (If this isn't clear, imagine someone bought a stock for $10 and it appreciates to $100. Now he donates it to a charity. The $90 of gain is never recognized nor taxed. But the deduction that can be claimed is $100, offsetting $100 of income - for a taxpayer who itemizes - creating a tax saving of 40% or more for a top bracket taxpayer and depending on the jurisdiction). This is a DOUBLE forbearance of tax - no cap gain on the $90 AND a loss of income tax. This is what finances NGOs.
This should be completely changed. Many options present themselves. First, the amount of charitable gifts, rather than being unlimited and Sched A deductible, should instead be allowed to be an amount up to 120% of the median household gift. Today, little people still make gifts to their school and church and receive NO tax benefit for them. The average household makes something like $2000 in donations annually, and so set the cap at $2400, which supports the little people in making small donations to their local organizations that build their personal networks. Allow this for natural persons only. All larger amounts are deemed a sale and are immediately taxable. (Or consider even the imposition of gift taxes and other deterrents to estate tax avoidance schemes). Furthermore, make "regifting" - i.e. making grants by the charity - not a deductible expense. Too many charities make donations to 501(c)4 advocacy orgs. The beauty is, pushing back on this reflects very badly on lefties - it looks like an effort to shirk making rich people pay taxes; we saw how embarrassing the opposition to the effective elimination of SALT tax deductions was. True, it did hurt some Rs in blue states, but better budget balance (and investments in the kinds of education and civic development) in states that adopt such a plan will make red areas more appealing.
Similarly, tax schools for charging more than 1968 levels of cost to average income of a degreed individual. A four year degree in 1968 cost something like 7500, or 75% of a college grads average wage of 10 or 12 k (might be three years out, which is also a fine benchmark, as some grads need a bit of time to find a job). Apply the same rules. Any school charging MORE than this is not a charity, but is engaging in extraction of economic rent in the form of capitalizing a students future earnings stream and appropriating it. To meet these numbers many things about campus life and administration will have to change and all of them will be pro-social: fewer administrators, full stop. Less programming (more self-direction), less fancy living conditions (you're a student, not a late 20s urban professional; you do not need luxury condos, and you will feel much better about your circumstances when, as an "adult" with an income, you can afford better digs than you had as a student. Red states need to apply these rules already for their state universities and push to reduce tuition, even for out of state applicants in an effort to outcompete northern work schools.
Above all, we must invest in an educational approach that continues to cultivate the next generation. This means strong family and community networks that are anti-atomistic.
Now that I think about it there are local groups of Europeans organizing to defend their property, children and quality of life (i.e., culture) against a hostile alien group – in Washington, DC, of all places.
Also, why is a house in Upper Caucasia (NW quadrant) twice as expensive as a similar one in African-American SE quadrant and the same distance from the federal triangle? According to official definitions of racism this is serious evidence and should be stopped. Oh, the horror, the horror!
Great article. Look forward to more with more specifics about the core principles around which such a movement can both be operated from the local community levels, and autonomously so, whilst also being able to spread throughout a polity at the idea visionary level.
It is so unfortunate that people keep believing in the 'vote harder' option. I have felt since Trump announced after his second impeachment that he would run AGAIN as a Republican that the best option for American conservatives is to cede the field entirely by refusing to vote for the Republican Party at any level whatsoever so that the country can see where the 'left' wants to take it, wake up, and create an alternative.
Your call to do this with parallel organizations is right on the money. But the biggest obstacle right now is the widespread con perpetrated by the current post-constitutional republic's electoral circus suckering people into doing the same thing over and over whilst expecting a different result.
I'm curious as to how your address was received. Like other readers, I found it uplifting because it offered a glimmer of hope in the midst of this pessimism I've been feeling. Maybe it's not the complete collapse of Westen Civilization. Or if it is, there's hope for something good to arise from the rubble.
I hope that this can and will be successful. The challenge will be in getting people to accept that it needs to happen. A lot of people probably agree with the problems we're having, with censorship and transgender surgeries for kids and the like, but think they can be fixed within the system.
Any charity or community service project is likely to just get hijacked by the left. What do you do when antifa wants to eat at your soup kitchen?
Tell them no and half of your membership walks away because all the newspapers say that your organization is White Supremacist, racist, etc. Oh, and your payment processor just dropped you so good luck fundraising.
Tell them yes and congrats, you are now a subsidiary of antifa.
You may have even included the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to some extent. From what I read a while ago, they checked a lot of the boxes re being the first on the spot for providing food, water, education, and the like where the state was absent. However they do not seem to have gained sufficient mass to be there in the event of collapse.
But then I haven't paid much attention and I read this years ago.
The RSS is Hindu. Viktor Orban says, "Christianity is Europe's last hope.". The exquisite parallel state was Christianity's usurpation of Roman political power. So why not acknowledge religion is the key to the successful parallel? Any body with their eyes open can see the religious fervor of the revolutionaries and their hopes kindled in the prophetic vision of destroying their oppressors.
People have to believe in their gods. There is no connective tissue in the body-politic without the cult. Religion is the key to understanding man.
You can also add Poland's Solidarność anti-communist trade union, although it should be kept in mind that Poland was overwhelmingly Catholic, and Catholicism had come to be identified with oppositional discourse and activity.
While Christianity may be an important source of motivation and inspiration for many in a future "parallel state" movement, that movement should not, of itself, be identified with Christianity. Why not? - For the following three reasons at least:
1. Christianity has historically been anti-theocratic. In the 5th century, St Augustine carefully laid out the arguments in "The City of God"; he was not expressing a personal preference, but built his case on theological and philosophical grounds. This anti-theocratic stance has been the norm in Western Christianity ever since, and where historical departures occurred, it was State that took control of the Church, not the other way around. "Confessional states" are often confused with theocracies by modern secular writers; they misunderstand the distinction, however: the ruler is not required to be atheistic or religiously indifferent, but rather, the hierarchies of Church and State must not overlap.
2. Modern states are not confessional, and Catholicism in many countries has rivals from various forms of Protestantism; not only conservatism, but leftism can be found in both. There are also secular conservatives who may have much to offer to any "parallel state" movement. In such modern states, to identify the movement with one section of Christianity would exclude most of the potential participants.
3. A near precedent in recent history was Action française (AF), set up at the turn of the last century because of the monopoly of secularism (and indeed Freemasonry) in all the institutions of the 3rd Republic. The state confiscations of Church property, and other lawless persecutions of priests, monks, nuns and laity might have made AF seem like an invaluable ally for Catholics, and many laymen thought so. Nevertheless, it was deliberately destroyed by Pope Pius XI in 1926, on various grounds, including its view of the Church as a socially useful institution (while agnostic on its claims to truth), and the impression it created that there was a package of political beliefs and actions that Catholics should feel obliged to support. Catholic AF members were to withdraw from the organisation on pain of excommunication. AF quickly collapsed after the ruling. Pius XI was under no illusions about the hostility of the French Republican state, but he still regarded the AF as too dangerous to the faith to keep as a friend. Our circumstances have changed over the past century, but there is still a large enough overlap to make any Action-française type organization unwise. There was even an attempt to do so during the past decade in France, but (in my opinion) it could not decide whether it was primarily political or just an association of pious laity, and the French state settled the matter by banning it.
For these reasons, I think that any parallel-state movement should not be explicitly Christian, and any Christian currents within it should remain informal.
This made me think of the Church, the true “body of believers”. Much of this sounded like how the Church SHOULD act.
Well yes, given this is basically the same "strategy" as that of the early, underground Church.
Nationalism seems very much at odds with the professed principles of the Roman Catholic Church (and many other religions). For example, "In Christ the is no East or West", etc. I think hooking up religion, conservatism, and nationalism / tribalism is going to be a lot trickier than you all seem to think. Universal nationalism / tribalism seems pretty much self-defeating and contradictory. In recent history, nationalism, whether from the Right, the Left, or the middle, has generally come to remarkably bad ends. Maybe there's something wrong with it?
"The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity." (2239, Catechism of the Catholic Church)
"The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity." (2239, Catechism of the Catholic Church)." Sure. Or one might say "Your country is your mother. You belong to her, and she belongs to you, and whether you like her or not, she's still your mother." But love for or responsibility for one's country and people are not the same as nationalism. At least, when I usually encounter nationalism, it's an ideology of preference and domination, a group conviction of one's own superiority and right to rule and possibly exclude others. Hence I see a conflict between universalizing religions like (most of) Christianity and nationalism. Yes, you could nuance it around to soften it up, to be less hostile, but that's not the way self-defined nationalists typically behave in my experience. I doubt if many people would have trouble thinking of examples.
My apologies, but it was not my intent to touch a nerve, but just show that the Roman Catholic Church IS at odds with nationalism without being at odds with patriotism. The key word there is "charity," the penultimate theological virtue, which is not a typical feature of nationalism.
Nationalism and tribalism are not synonyms. But in this case, the "tribe" can genuinely be defined as homo sapiens humanity. The transhumanists have other plans. I am on team Pro-human. Where do you stand?
Give to Caesar what is Cesar's, but give to God what is God's. Mark 12:17.
There is a serious motivation problem though. When you have one side filled with people who just want to live their lives and be left alone up against a side who wakes up every day imaging how they can "fix big problems!" I.e get into everyone's business, it's not a fair fight.
With the recent billing issues here on Substack I thought, we need our own bank.
N.S., love the article. My own thinking has led me to similar conclusions about what is necessary to build a conservative movement. One question I’ve been pondering is how we can prevent a conservative movement from being overtaken by the most radical right-wing members in a time when politics is so reactionary. I fear that the success of a truly principled conservative movement could be thwarted by a failure to fend against the right flank. While, sometimes, saying the most inflammatory, controversial hot-take can win support among a right-wing base, this tends to alienate those who are more moderate. I agree with your analysis that what is needed is a pre-political movement. I believe there is a large majority of moderates in this country who would be happy to return to a more traditional culture, but are not particularly interested in politics and are often turned off by movements considered to be overtly partisan. The question is how to balance the need to have strong conservative principles at the core of a movement, without allowing it to be overtaken by the loudest, most reactionary voices in the room, simply because they appear to be an enemy of your enemy.
I agree that this is a potential problem, but if more moderate people don't take action to lead such a movement, then more radical people will.
I'd also say that it is pretty imperative that such a movement not frame itself as overtly political/partisan at all, at least a first. It's purpose would be to help people and build community at a local level, and therefore would I think be more successful at pulling in the more normal people you are talking about; with enough such people involved it would also be more difficult to swing to extreme positions.
Yes, you can't go in with Conservative on your shirt. It's a subversive process, like it or not. You have to use a Christian tactic. You don't preach at people, you show them what being happy looks like and let them ask you how.
So like a fatherhood support group?
I completely agree that such a movement should not frame itself as overtly political/partisan, at least at first. I think it's important that any organization has enough foundational principles to prevent itself from being corrupted by the same forces that have corrupted our current institutions, while avoiding taking political stances unnecessary to fulfill it's purpose: helping people and building local communities.
In the surveillence state that is being built, care will be neccessary to avoid the same issues as say, Falun Gong, right?
Instead of starting off a grassroots movement with who to exclude, start off with what we most value: love of God, family, home, community, country, in that order.
Your list needs to include love of humanity, that is, homo sapiens. Transhumanism is a real threat.
Love of humanity is the core of Christianity. You know, the whole John 3:16 thing — for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son…. And Jesus commanded, “Love one another, as I have loved you.” (John 15:12) That core isn’t changed by professing Christians who fail to demonstrate it. But even when love is demonstrated, it isn’t acknowledged as such in woke culture, since love, to them, means approving of practically anything a person says is their truth.
It is. But things not EXPLICITLY on the list are vulnerable to hijacking. So the list needs to include humanity, IMO.
The list was kinda modeled on what Jesus answered when asked what is the most important commandment and he answered (I'm paraphrasing), "First, love of God and then love of neighbor."
It seems pretty obvious to me that one cannot love God and love his neighbor AND be on "team transhumanist." I have no objection to putting "humanity" on a list of loves, but it is too abstract for my tastes. It's like hearing someone is for world peace and immediately a bumper sticker pops into my head about "whirled peas."
There are lots of things that "seem pretty obvious" that are nevertheless vulnerable to hijacking through the use of layered language. It's easy to defend against if you know the tactics. Harder if you get blindsided.
We have human beings declaring themselves to be gods, in the style of the old god-kings. Are they the God being reference? (Obviously no, but they'll try!)
The parable of the Good Samaritan is extraordinary, but only if you truly understand what a Samaritan was to that audience: scum. It's specifically renouncing tribalism in favor of a greater concept of neighbor that encompasses all of humanity. Unfortunately, most people don't understand the parable. It gets misinterpreted as "my neighbor is the person who does good things for me."
The list is a good list if you're prepared to explain and DEFEND each of those terms. But all of them can be twisted.
That's why I have started throwing in "of the species homo sapiens" as the definition of human. The transhumanists are trying to steal that word too. Notice how they claim that affirmation will make them human? Funny definition of human there.
Just get hyper aware of how language can be twisted and actively defend against it.
By all means, let’s be crystal clear. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is about as clear as it gets, but when they asked, “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus answered with the parable of the Good Samaritan. That was clear on clear.
Ugh
I have been waiting for this - a plan for a path forward - and away from globalism. I would love to hear more about the ins and outs & the brass tacks of this parallel state. It puts me in mind of how the Catholic Church in Poland safeguarded their culture through the Church. With the accession of the first & only Polish Pope - John Paul II - he was able to speak to the faithful in Poland lending his weight giving rise to the Solidarity Movement. There is an excellent video on Amazon Prime about this - "Liberating a Continent: John Paul II and the Fall of Communism". You have given me hope that there IS a way out. Thank you.
The timing could be perfect. It's becoming an ugly, scary, depressing world out there, overloaded with hate, bile, resentment, blame. Really, an unending nightmare. Into that mess, throw sunshine, invitation, aspiration, humor and optimism. And see who comes to the party. Be brave, dare to smile, be happy, worshipful, and laugh a lot. Brilliant.
Tell me where to sign up. I have no great stash of money, my body can be a bit undependable, but I'm a quick learner, passionate, and I have a modicum of intelligence and some ideas.
Thinking about your examples, there is the interesting point that China, DPRK, Vietnam, Myanmar, Cuba and other communist states have been able to nullify these sorts of movements - and indeed actively suppress them (Xinjiang, being just one example). So what made the successful examples successful? One aspect seems to be imperial rule - the perception that the elite were captured and indeed, agents of, foreign powers (Russians, mostly, though for the Hindu Nationalists there were the twin occupations of the Mughals and the British. The "people" under Hindu nationalism do not really include the Muslim minority.
Moreover, in China, you had the Communists FIRST make intersectional arguments against the KMT - that "nationalists" would insist that everyone become Han. Then, having secured power, that is exactly what they engaged in - a cultural enforcement on language, clothing, religion and suppression of ethnic minorities.
All of which suggests that success in this endeavor is going to require the demonstration that the American / Western elite are in fact all one blob CAPTURED by Communist China and visiting all of the many evils upon the West that are deliberately ineffective and ineffectual, that they are designed NOT TO WORK. Both to create new excuses for more powers to be ceded and also as a means of destroying the system itself so it can be replaced. Attacking both the patriotism of the elite and its corruption (and the channels through which the money flows) are crucial aspects of this counter-revolution.
One thing that is underappreciated is the degree to which inflation, budget balance and left financing could be addressed through a new approach to taxation. While the left frequently argues about the need to tax the rich more, they put the emphasis on RATES of tax, rather than on the more important question of what counts as INCOME, since this is really how rich people avoid taxation. They get to take all sorts of benefits and expense them rather than pay taxes on them, or they simply defer recognition of them, or and this is the biggest scam - they donate them (to lefty captured institutions). Gifts of appreciated securities are the ultimate tax scam. The appreciation was never taxed (since there was no sale) BUT the full amount of the market value gets to be deducted from income. So there is a double offset - no income is recognized but there is a tax deduction awarded for the untaxed and unrecognized gains. (If this isn't clear, imagine someone bought a stock for $10 and it appreciates to $100. Now he donates it to a charity. The $90 of gain is never recognized nor taxed. But the deduction that can be claimed is $100, offsetting $100 of income - for a taxpayer who itemizes - creating a tax saving of 40% or more for a top bracket taxpayer and depending on the jurisdiction). This is a DOUBLE forbearance of tax - no cap gain on the $90 AND a loss of income tax. This is what finances NGOs.
This should be completely changed. Many options present themselves. First, the amount of charitable gifts, rather than being unlimited and Sched A deductible, should instead be allowed to be an amount up to 120% of the median household gift. Today, little people still make gifts to their school and church and receive NO tax benefit for them. The average household makes something like $2000 in donations annually, and so set the cap at $2400, which supports the little people in making small donations to their local organizations that build their personal networks. Allow this for natural persons only. All larger amounts are deemed a sale and are immediately taxable. (Or consider even the imposition of gift taxes and other deterrents to estate tax avoidance schemes). Furthermore, make "regifting" - i.e. making grants by the charity - not a deductible expense. Too many charities make donations to 501(c)4 advocacy orgs. The beauty is, pushing back on this reflects very badly on lefties - it looks like an effort to shirk making rich people pay taxes; we saw how embarrassing the opposition to the effective elimination of SALT tax deductions was. True, it did hurt some Rs in blue states, but better budget balance (and investments in the kinds of education and civic development) in states that adopt such a plan will make red areas more appealing.
Similarly, tax schools for charging more than 1968 levels of cost to average income of a degreed individual. A four year degree in 1968 cost something like 7500, or 75% of a college grads average wage of 10 or 12 k (might be three years out, which is also a fine benchmark, as some grads need a bit of time to find a job). Apply the same rules. Any school charging MORE than this is not a charity, but is engaging in extraction of economic rent in the form of capitalizing a students future earnings stream and appropriating it. To meet these numbers many things about campus life and administration will have to change and all of them will be pro-social: fewer administrators, full stop. Less programming (more self-direction), less fancy living conditions (you're a student, not a late 20s urban professional; you do not need luxury condos, and you will feel much better about your circumstances when, as an "adult" with an income, you can afford better digs than you had as a student. Red states need to apply these rules already for their state universities and push to reduce tuition, even for out of state applicants in an effort to outcompete northern work schools.
Above all, we must invest in an educational approach that continues to cultivate the next generation. This means strong family and community networks that are anti-atomistic.
Now that I think about it there are local groups of Europeans organizing to defend their property, children and quality of life (i.e., culture) against a hostile alien group – in Washington, DC, of all places.
https://dcist.com/story/23/12/13/dc-chevy-chase-community-center-housing/
https://dcist.com/story/23/07/06/gwu-dorm-shelter-for-medically-vulnerable-brooke-pinto/
Also, why is a house in Upper Caucasia (NW quadrant) twice as expensive as a similar one in African-American SE quadrant and the same distance from the federal triangle? According to official definitions of racism this is serious evidence and should be stopped. Oh, the horror, the horror!
Great article. Look forward to more with more specifics about the core principles around which such a movement can both be operated from the local community levels, and autonomously so, whilst also being able to spread throughout a polity at the idea visionary level.
It is so unfortunate that people keep believing in the 'vote harder' option. I have felt since Trump announced after his second impeachment that he would run AGAIN as a Republican that the best option for American conservatives is to cede the field entirely by refusing to vote for the Republican Party at any level whatsoever so that the country can see where the 'left' wants to take it, wake up, and create an alternative.
Your call to do this with parallel organizations is right on the money. But the biggest obstacle right now is the widespread con perpetrated by the current post-constitutional republic's electoral circus suckering people into doing the same thing over and over whilst expecting a different result.
Well said! As Tip O’Neill famously observed, “All politics is local.”
I'm curious as to how your address was received. Like other readers, I found it uplifting because it offered a glimmer of hope in the midst of this pessimism I've been feeling. Maybe it's not the complete collapse of Westen Civilization. Or if it is, there's hope for something good to arise from the rubble.
I hope that this can and will be successful. The challenge will be in getting people to accept that it needs to happen. A lot of people probably agree with the problems we're having, with censorship and transgender surgeries for kids and the like, but think they can be fixed within the system.
Any charity or community service project is likely to just get hijacked by the left. What do you do when antifa wants to eat at your soup kitchen?
Tell them no and half of your membership walks away because all the newspapers say that your organization is White Supremacist, racist, etc. Oh, and your payment processor just dropped you so good luck fundraising.
Tell them yes and congrats, you are now a subsidiary of antifa.
You may have even included the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to some extent. From what I read a while ago, they checked a lot of the boxes re being the first on the spot for providing food, water, education, and the like where the state was absent. However they do not seem to have gained sufficient mass to be there in the event of collapse.
But then I haven't paid much attention and I read this years ago.