There’s no reason for me to criticise the left-wing politics any more. They are so obviously insane that nobody in his right mind needs any kind of argument regarding this. However, I am increasingly troubled by the right-wing apologists, and I’m going to explain my reasoning here. However, this might be difficult since I’ve been thinking about this extensively and the depth and scope of my true analysis will certainly exceed the limitations of a single article. For this reason, I’ll try to start with the conclusion, and then branch the argument further until I get something usable.

The conclusion is that they have nothing to offer that hadn’t been tried already, and the attempts to fix the problems that arose in the historical attempts to implement their ideas gradually produced the mess of a political scene and, on a more profound level, a dysfunctional civilization in the process of collapse.

They offer nationalism as a remedy for globalism, secularism as a remedy for the infiltration of Islam into the social fabric of the West, occasionally they resort to some sort of a spiritually vapid form of Christianity as a remedy for the even more spiritually vapid secular atheism, they assume that the separation of Church and State is the way to go, democracy is implicitly assumed as a superior solution, they never question the concept of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of specific individuals, they never question the concept of shielding oneself from the corruptibility of individuals by resorting to impersonal bureaucracy and legislature, they never question equality of individuals before law, and so on. However, we already are very close to the end-result of following those implicit premises to their logical conclusions, into madness and evil.

What the right-wing apologists are saying now is that they would like secularism and separation of rule from person, but that’s how we got the slaughterhouse that was the French revolution. They say that nationalism is preferable to globalism and internationalism, but nationalism resulted in two world wars of the 20^th century, and internationalism and globalism were thought of as remedies for the evils and extremes of nationalism. They ridicule the leftist gender bullshit and extreme egalitarianism, but all those things were the result of accepting the assumption that Hitler was wrong in the core aspects of his politics, and that he was defeated in the second world war because he was wrong, not because he had weaker military and less resources. You can’t be both virgin and fucked. Hitler came to power as a remedy for the leftist madness of the Weimar republic, which was very similar to what we are having today. What the right-wingers of today are tiptoeing around is the fact that Hitler was more right than he was wrong. He was wrong about solving problems with genocide. He was wrong saying that the Germans are a superior race, and then in the same breath saying they need help competing with the Jews in a meritocratic society. He, too, tried to have it both ways – if the Germans are superior, then you don’t need genocide, racial laws, and segregation of the “inferior races”. If you consistently implement meritocracy, the superior ones will win, however the results might not be neatly aligned across racial and national lines, which is why Hitler couldn’t allow it; the results would contradict his ideology. He was right about opposing degeneracy in art, culture and science. He was right saying that the nature and the environment must be protected. He was right stating that the races and people are different and that there are superior and inferior ones, he just couldn’t bear to act as if this was actually a fact and introduce completely meritocratic laws. He was right stating that the genetically defective humans should not reproduce and that human reproduction should conform to eugenic guidelines, he just forgot that implementing eugenics without regard to compassion and love would produce a dysgenic human race. He was wrong about many things, but he was also right about enough things that he ought not be dismissed out of hand without carefully considering his arguments, and he was certainly not wrong enough to be used as a standard for evil and wrongness. However, if there’s something both left and right of today’s politics agree on, it’s that Hitler was evil and that the “good guys” won the second world war. Also, they agree that the right side won the French revolution, and that all basic precepts of secularism are valid. This is why the political right of today is unable to offer solutions that don’t consist of performing a rollback to some already tried and failed state. They have no original, new, radical solutions. Nothing that hasn’t already been tried, and nothing that hasn’t already failed so badly that it produced the main-stream politics of today as an attempted solution.

It’s interesting how the Jews act as if Hitler was more right than he was wrong; they accept the fact that there are races of different value, they just think they are the superior race. They accept the fact that a superior race can use genocide and violence against inferior races and peoples that threaten it, and they use those measures against the Arabs. Basically, the only thing they have against Hitler is that he was on the opposite side and a threat, but they accept his basic assumptions and methods. If they can do this, and they would in theory have every right to assume he was wrong about everything and accept him as the etalon of evil, where opposite of Hitler is good, there is obviously something quite not right about the European right-wing in their willingness to accept the assumptions that Israel, despite all reasons for the opposite, was unwilling to accept. That’s why Israel is, in my opinion, a spiritually much healthier society than Europe. They, at least, are ready to accept the premise that they are the best, that they are worthy, that they have the right to assume supremacy and rule over others, and if something is different from them, it’s probably because it’s worse. If a civilization is unwilling to accept those premises, it ceases to defend its right to exist and to fight others for supremacy and, even existence. If a civilization, or a person, approaches life from a position of cynicism and scepticism towards oneself, it is by definition degenerate and in the process of extinction. If you don’t think you’re the best, you are basically calling others with less scruples to wipe you out and take your place. That’s how things work. You can’t have a healthy, or even sane society if you are unwilling to accept the fact that the same fair rules must apply to everyone, and that those who succeeded under those rules deserved to succeed, and those who didn’t most likely deserved to fail. And you also can’t have a sane and functional society if you are unwilling to inspect those who failed and determine which ones failed due to no fault of their own and help them as a community, and which ones failed because they are no good, and allow them to suffer the consequences of their poor choices and serve as a reminder to others.