The left’s single biggest advantage over the right is its unity.
Studies show that the left is largely defined by consensus, whereas the right is more a cluster of deviations from the left’s consensus rather than a consensus in its own right. This not only makes us relatively prone to infighting, but many of us also refuse to even identify as “the right” and therefore fail to identify “the left” as our primary adversary.
Whether it’s the moderates punching right at the radicals for being “woke right”, “feds” and freaking out the normies, or the radicals dismissing the moderates as cucks, psy-ops, grifters and “shabbos goyim”, right-wingers tend to expend more energy differentiating themselves from other right-wingers than they do on taking on the left.
The structure of mass democratic politics, however, is inherently one of bipolarised conflict. The only way you can build a political coalition large enough to take power, is to match the one currently in power in size and strength, dividing society in two necessarily. The left-right distinction is inescapable.
This isn’t to say that infighting is illegitimate. These tensions within the right exist for a reason and need to play themselves out. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that we are on the same side, and that our internal disputes are of a fundamentally different nature to our fight with the left.
Our fight with the left is for power and survival – they are working towards a goal of making it impossible for the right in any form to win by reducing our core White voter base to a minority through mass immigration, censoring our speech, and jailing our activists, making political resistance impossible.
Our disputes with one another are, however, not an existential zero-sum game. We need each other. We will either triumph together or be defeated apart.
Moderates are needed to meet the people where they are and secure their votes, radicals are needed to move the people where they need to go to secure their support.
Radicals without moderates can’t win elections and take power. Moderates without radicals are too beholden to a status quo defined by their opponents to win an election without first sacrificing the ability to actually do anything meaningful with the power it confers.
As I explained in a prior opinion piece, thanks to mass immigration and secularisation the left-right distinction is now defined by race, not class or religion.
Whilst most of the mainstream right denies the charge of “racism”, it is a crypto-racist entity. Finding nominally non-racist reasons for supporting policies that structurally maintain and benefit Whiteness is now the quintessence of right-wing electoral politics.
Anyone still claiming to be “right-wing” who hasn’t clued into this new reality will be swept aside. Which is why the Tony Abbott faction of the Liberal Party wants to imitate and effectively subordinate itself to One Nation.
However, the rest of the party wants to install the rat Andrew Hastie as leader, imitate the Teals, and preference Labor over One Nation. And I predict they will win out, as the Liberal Party has been a left-wing party LARPing as right-wing for a long time.
For an actual right-wing party like One Nation, clueing into this new reality isn’t as simple as adopting policies against mass immigration and multiculturalism to secure votes. It also needs to recognise the necessity of defending its radicals to secure their support.
Pauline Hanson, to her credit, has shown some recognition of this necessity. One Nation is not its own vanguard – it has been a rather consistent political entity for the past decade, yet has only now suddenly gained mass popularity. It didn’t cause its own surge in support – the salience of the issues which are driving support towards it were raised by activists both online and on the street.
This is why Labor moved so hard to censor the internet and politically police patriotic activists back off the streets. They are moving to strangle the radicals moving the public towards One Nation in a desperate bid to hold onto power. The state-directed censorship of this very website from X earlier this week being just another example of this.
If One Nation, and the right in general, doesn’t take a stronger stance against this – the “hate speech” laws, the censorship, the banning of “hate groups”, the political policing of the patriot movement generally – it won’t just be the radicals themselves who suffer. It could cost One Nation the next election.
While moderate-right commentators narrow-mindedly turn a blind eye or even celebrate the cancellation of their radical-right contemporaries, Labor rubs its hands together in glee. Labor censors and prosecutes the radical right because it knows they make the right stronger and more popular. It wouldn’t stand by and allow a One Nation government to do the same to the radicals of the left without opposition, because it knows it would make them weaker.
Whilst it is true that radicals on the right themselves need to learn to play as a team, and recognise the pragmatic value of the moderates, who can blame them for being so disaffected by the moderates when they seldom lift a finger to defend them? It’s a two-way street.
The right doesn’t need to unite on everything all the time. We should value productive debate and the push-pull of pragmatism and idealism, electoralism and activism, populism and vanguardism.
But we also need to unite on free speech, if nothing else.
Labor wouldn’t censor, ban or jail us if it didn’t recognise us as a threat. Which from the perspective of the right, proves we are an asset. Assets it needs to protect. And assets which would be far better team players if we were actually being protected.
Header image: Thousands of patriots at the March for Australia rally in Brisbane in August last year (supplied).
