Let us consider together.
My argument in this post is that any proposal for an ideal society and/or for the establishment of normative values is ultimately a zero sum game, since it is not practically possible to effectively and authentically satisfy everyone’s opinion and be consistent with everyone’s beliefs. When someone benefits from the proposal, someone else, by necessity, will suffer. For every inclusion there will be an equal and opposite exclusion. And this principle of zero sum game sociopolitical dynamics applies equally to both the Left as well as the Right.
For example, with the current leftist System “woke” zeal for “inclusion” there is sometimes the unrealistic attitude that “inclusion” can include and benefit everyone (in practice of course, straight White men are the ones targeted for exclusion and dispossession, but let us for the moment consider the mendacious and hypocritical rhetoric of inclusivity at face value).
Being fully “inclusive” is self-contradictory since a policy of “full inclusivity” – accepting everyone – means the acceptance of those who reject inclusion, and will not voluntarily practice inclusivity regardless of what arguments are made. We can call such people “exclusives” – and I am one such person. There are three choices on how to deal with such people in a regime of inclusion. First, they can be excluded, which obviously means that a fully inclusive regime has failed, and does not exist. They can be accepted, but allowed to practice exclusion in their own affairs, which also obviously is a failure for a completely inclusive society. Lastly, they can be accepted, but forced against their will, with the full power of state and social coercion, to be involuntarily inclusive; this choice is “inclusion” in name only, and delegitimizes the moral authority of the regime by depriving the exclusives of their fundamental human rights (and it is this last option that most resembles the current “woke” “West”).
Inclusion in the full and free sense is impossible. There are many overlapping areas of incompatibility – peoples, cultures, lifestyles, opinions, beliefs, etc. which simply cannot peacefully and voluntarily exist in the same polity. It is a zero sum game; to include “X” means, practically speaking, to exclude “Y” and vice versa. To put in it crude layman’s terms – “you can’t please everyone.” In practice, “diversity, equity, and inclusion” excludes Whites, particularly heterosexual White men, and even more particularly Whites who are rightist in their worldview. Such people can only be forcibly integrated into a progressive leftist societal regime; any type of voluntary integration would be one side or the other would need to compromise core ideals, delegitimizing their belief system. It is a zero sum game in which there will be definite and defined winners and losers. The idea that “everyone wins” is fantasy.
The same applies to any movement, any sort of dissident politics, any revolutionary activism, and any vision for the future. As much as some people wish to preach a “big tent” approach there are certain incompatibilities that will create fissures that will continue to grow until the movement splits apart and, possibly, collapses. This is certainly true of the Right, including the Far Right. Even if we restrict “inclusion” here to mean Whites, obviously we cannot accept everyone where they are with their beliefs. Even further and more to the point for pro-White activism – even if we were to more strictly restrict ourselves only to those Whites are on the Right and who agree with the broad idea of White nationalism, or at least pro-White activism, we observe incompatibilities that would result in a zero sum game inclusion/exclusion outcome if specific ideals were to be actualized. See this comment excerpt from “Buttercup” from Counter-Currents:
…Many whites, including myself, consider a liberal society a must, but a normatively white society a nice-to-have.
Zoomers are especially zealous about personal autonomy, and with good reason – they have extremely dim economic prospects and pitiful wealth and savings relative to previous generations. As such, any Rightist attack on Leftist civil rights positions will meet especially ferocious resistance from this demographic.
I was a vocal Yang-gang supporter back on Twitter and still rock the pink Yang hat on my Gab profile, as I think that raising the material conditions of whites as a whole is far more important than pushing a racially-based aristocratic / NS mentality or belief system. I think that white advocacy should be de-coupled from Christianity and Nazism and become accessible to all whites, especially traditionally leftist and counter-culture demographics…
This person prioritizes a “liberal society” of a “normatively white society” and believes that the “movement” should be about “that raising the material conditions of whites” rather than promoting actual White nationalist beliefs. Thus, we should emphasize appealing to “traditionally leftist and counter-culture demographics.” Well, yes, you can do that – but you would the lose the core supporters of the Far Right, all those people (including myself) who view such a “liberal society” as anathema and not anything that wish to fight for. My appealing to one side, you alienate the other. All “big tent” rhetoric aside, zero sum game dynamics are the practical reality. The GOP solution of taking core supporters for granted and focusing only on attracting outliers, works only if you suppress the ability of the core to rebel against this strategy, a rebellion of which Trumpism was only the first manifestation. Dissidents who are by nature contrarians are dedicated to ideology are going to be much less controllable than the GOP voter rank-and-file. Attempts to take the Far Right core for granted while reaching out to “traditionally leftist and counter-culture demographics” is going to fail.
I’ve given up my delusion that one can build an authentic movement that can appeal to all Far Right, pro-White factions. It is just not possible. Pan-Europeanists vs. ethnonationalists and Nordicists (and other fetishists), futurists vs. traditionalists, normative morality vs. the Buttercup crew, Christians and anti-Christians, different economic visions, every permutation and iteration of constructing a new and better society – these are incompatible, and favoring one vision is a zero sum game in which an opposing view is thus disfavored. That is stark reality and this reality cannot be evaded.
People will need to promote their own particular vision and work for that and others will do their own thing and hopefully the solution will be that everyone can go their own way. In this sense, Norman Lowell’s Imperium vs Dominion distinction is useful – there is the overall Imperium dealing with big issues, but there is the more local-oriented Dominion, which allows sufficient local sovereignty for every day, smaller-scale issues, so that micro-societies within the Imperium can satisfy particular niches of demography, belief, and lifestyle. That may avoid some of the zero sum game problems.
Promoters of the “big tent” approach would state that the preceding paragraph is precisely what they are doing – a broad overall group that has smaller sub-units. But in reality their approach is too concentrated and they are trying to too closely “bin” together disparate, incompatible elements in a manner that will cause friction and division.
There just isn’t enough similarity between these dissident factions to fit even under a very large tent. Trying to force these groups together will cause zero sum game issues.
eginotes 